d/discourse analysis: using multiple lenses for
TRANSCRIPT
D/discourse Analysis: Using Multiple Lenses for Researching
Curriculum, Sustainability and Agency in the Context of
Higher Education Texts and Talk.
Submitted by Susan Caroline Wayman, to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the
degree of Doctor of Education in Education, October 2014
This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright
material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper
acknowledgement.
I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified
and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a
degree by this or any other University.
(Signature) ………………………………………………………………………………
1
Abstract
This thesis primarily involves an exercise in D/discourse analysis (Alvesson and
Kärreman, 2000), where particular Higher Education [HE] curriculum D/discourses
were explored in the context of sustainability and with an emphasis on agency. In
drawing together the global and local nature of D/discourse, attention to change as a
linguistic phenomenon envisaged concepts of sustainability, curriculum and agency
as ‘floating signifiers’ or ‘nodal points’ filled with different discursive meanings. This
was progressed through poststructural, constructionist and constructivist lenses
using linguistic, semiotic, narrative, interpretative and reflexive methods in analysis of
texts and talk in a creative way and it is my approach to study that, I believe, offers a
distinct and original contribution to the academic community. The emphasis was on
personal challenge to my own ways of knowing and being.
My research has alerted me to the power of D/discourse analysis in diminishing the
realist sense of closure that in the possibility of multiple interpretations can also
highlight languages of agentic possibility as well as despair. In moving from
constructs of Discourse to discourse and back again, I considered that we were in
some ways creating the issues we discussed and in this maintaining and
perpetuating a restricted view of educational curriculum, each other and the future
that we did not necessarily want or believe in. The pessimistic narratives reinforced
articulations of hopelessness in educational, agentic and natural ways, offering
multiple reasons for inaction and in this also constraining potential opportunities for
more positive change. My argumentative, interpretative and reflexive approach
made me more attentive to and understanding of alternative perspectives and
positions, and my own, that I hope will open up lines of dialogue and suggested
agency that may generate more sustainable ways of being.
2
List of Contents
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................................ 1
LIST OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................... 2
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................ 5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 7
FOCUS AND KEY QUESTIONS ................................................................................................................................... 13
KEY TERMS .......................................................................................................................................................... 16
POSTMODERNISM AND/OR REFLEXIVE MODERNITY ..................................................................................................... 16
D/DISCOURSE ...................................................................................................................................................... 18
CURRICULUM ....................................................................................................................................................... 20
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY ...................................................................................................... 23
AGENCY .............................................................................................................................................................. 24
PERSONAL POSITIONING ......................................................................................................................................... 25
TRANSFORMATION ................................................................................................................................................ 31
FRAMEWORK OF EMPIRICAL STUDY ........................................................................................................................... 33
OVERVIEW OF THIS THESIS ...................................................................................................................................... 38
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................... 40
GLOBAL DEBATES: HIGHER EDUCATION AND CHANGE .................................................................................................. 42
CHANGE AS RISK AND REFLEXIVE MODERNITY ............................................................................................................ 45
DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................................... 50
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 51
EDUCATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT............................................................................................................ 55
ESD AND HE CURRICULUM D/DISCOURSES ............................................................................................................... 61
INSTITUTIONAL CULTURE AND D/DISCOURSE .............................................................................................................. 68
REFLEXIVE MODERNITY AND AGENCY ......................................................................................................................... 72
3
MOVING TOWARDS EMPIRICAL STUDY ....................................................................................................................... 75
PERSONAL POSITION IN RESEARCH ............................................................................................................................ 82
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND METHODS ............................................................................... 89
PARADIGMATIC POSITION ....................................................................................................................................... 94
ONTOLOGICAL POSITION......................................................................................................................................... 98
EPISTEMOLOGICAL POSITION ................................................................................................................................. 101
METHODOLOGICAL POSITION ................................................................................................................................ 106
RESEARCH METHODS........................................................................................................................................... 112
METHODS FOR ANALYSIS OF TEXTS AS DISCOURSE ..................................................................................................... 113
METHODS FOR ANALYSIS OF TALK AS D/DISCOURSE .................................................................................................. 118
INITIAL CONSIDERATION OF THE LIMITATIONS OF D/DISCOURSE ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 126
REFLECTION AND REFLEXIVITY ............................................................................................................................... 129
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................ 133
STRATEGIC DOCUMENTARY ANALYSIS: LEARNING AND TEACHING STRATEGIES 2005 -2009 AND 2010 – 2014................... 134
CHANGING IDENTITY NARRATIVES .......................................................................................................................... 135
LEARNING AND TEACHING STRATEGY 2005 – 2009 (LT1) ......................................................................................... 136
LEARNING AND TEACHING STRATEGY 2010-2014 (LT2) ........................................................................................... 138
REVISITING TEXTS ............................................................................................................................................... 141
TEXTUAL ANALYSIS: SUSTAINABILITY STATEMENT ...................................................................................................... 157
INTERVIEW ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................... 161
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................... 193
APPENDICES................................................................................................................................................. 207
Appendix 1: Excerpt from Framing and Structure Analysis ....................................................................... 207
Appendix 2: Comparing Aims of Strategic Plans 2005-2010 [abridged] and 2010-15 .............................. 209
Appendix 3: Second Dance with Analysis of Learning and Teaching Strategies ........................................ 210
Appendix 4: Chains of Equivalence and Difference between LT1 and LT2 – The Discourse of Learning ... 211
Appendix 5: Teaching – Positioning Academic Skills and Attributes [Exaggeration and substitution] ..... 212
4
Appendix 6: Sustainable Education Curriculum Keywords in LT1 and LT2 (Sterling, 2010, 2011, 2014;
Tilbury, 2011) ............................................................................................................................................ 213
Appendix 7: Self Analysis: Programme Descriptor .................................................................................... 214
Appendix 8: Re-articulation of Programme Descriptor ............................................................................ 215
Appendix 9: Assessment [Level 4] Original and Revised Programme Descriptors ..................................... 216
Appendix 10: Graduate skills for employment .......................................................................................... 217
Appendix 11: Sustainability Statement Analysis ....................................................................................... 218
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................. 220
5
List of tables
TABLE 1: ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ESD (UNESCO, 2005: ONLINE) ............................................. 56
TABLE 2: OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH PROCESS. ......................................................................................... 91
TABLE 3: OBJECTIFYING TECHNIQUES AND TOOLS USED IN INITIAL CODING AND ANALYSIS OF INSTITUTIONAL
DOCUMENTS ................................................................................................................................. 114
TABLE 4: NINE PERSPECTIVES DESCRIBING HUMANS’ RELATIONSHIP WITH NATURE (KELLERT, 1993; GULLONE,
2000:306) ................................................................................................................................... 117
TABLE 5: POST ECOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIVE REPERTOIRES [ADAPTED FROM ZEYER AND ROTH, 2011) .... 119
TABLE 6: CURRICULUM INTERPRETATIVE REPERTOIRES (ADAPTED FROM HÖKKÄ ET AL, 2010) .................. 120
6
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere thanks to a number of people who have enabled
and supported me on this epic journey.
For colleagues who engaged and supported me in the process, thank you. Your
sharing of texts and talk, and the many educational conversations we have had along
the way have been much appreciated.
I would like to thank my supervisors, and I have seen a few come and go in what has
been a lengthy process. Particular gratitude to Dr. Fran Martin for her heroism in
sticking with me during the last few years. Your thought-provoking comments and
keen attention to detail have challenged and enabled me to reach this point. I would
also like to express my thanks to Dr Alun Morgan for accompanying me on part of
this journey and Dr Cheryl Hunt who walked alongside me at the start of my
programme.
Most importantly I would like to say a special thanks to my daughters Louise and
Jade, and my granddaughter Maya. You have given my life boundless love, joy and
pride and a reason to strive for a more hopeful future. Love you always.
7
Chapter 1: Introduction
This thesis primarily involves an exercise in D/discourse analysis (Alvesson and
Kärreman, 2000), both in terms of the hegemonic fixity of discursive orders, and
counter-hegemonic articulations of discoursing subjects. Higher Education [HE]
curriculum D/discourses were explored in the context of sustainability, with an
emphasis on reflexive modernity and agency. In empirical analysis political,
environmental and curriculum D/discourse analytic approaches were developed into
a methodology that highlighted the relevance of poststructural and postecological
discourse theories for analysis of texts and talk. Personal reflexivity within the
process was also central to analysis, where my sense of personal agency in
curriculum development was explored. This chapter introduces the topic, my
approach and myself as researcher.
In recent decades there has been increased emphasis on, and greater inclusion of
environmental alongside economic and social concerns and considerations in
globalised development thinking and policy prescription, including within higher
education and curriculum development (Cortese, 2003; Sterling, 2004, 2012; Blewitt,
2004). In pursuit of sustainable development and/or sustainability, Education for
Sustainable Development (ESD) and a number of related variations, have been
envisaged as essential for a necessary reorienting of education in relation to the
economic, social and environmental issues we face and choices we make (WCED,
1987; Sterling, 2001; UNESCO, 2002; 2005; Cortese, 2003). Key elements of
D/discourses surrounding sustainability, [a term I shall use as inclusive of multiple
discursive, conceptual and practical variations at this time], feature notions of
environmental change, uncertainty and risk, alongside anthropocentric and normative
concerns of survival, rights, well-being, equality and freedom. In calls for global
8
thinking, there has also been increased emphasis on local action, participation and
heterogeneity of ideas (Turner, 2005: 58), to the extent that global issues are clearly
linked to local solutions, and changes at the micro level of opinions, attitudes and
behaviour.
In recognition of the importance attributed to environmental concerns that further
complicate, and for some override, anthropocentric normative articulations of
progress and the good, D/discourse analysis is thought to enable a more dynamic,
historically sensitive mode of cultural inquiry that could also draw attention to agency
and responsibility of HE, my institution and self as individual agent and curriculum
developer. This focus was, I felt, a part of my own professional identity and
responsibility as a lecturer in Higher Education (HE), and an assumed and ascribed
area of ‘expertise’. From the outset, my thesis was an engagement in challenging
personal and professional understandings through attention to D/discourse. An
empirical focus on ‘discursive orders’ and ‘discoursing subjects’, in texts and
conversations regarding curriculum and sustainability was key (Hajer, 1995; Dryzec,
1997/2005; Alvesson and Kärreman, 2000; Wetherell, 2000a). For Szerszynski
(1996), the ‘environmental movement’ was borne out of D/discourses of identity,
technology and crisis, an approach, for some, tinged with or motivated by ‘angst’,
‘fundamentalism’ and ‘traditional certitudes’ and ‘values’ and rationalised inactivity
(Blühdorn, 2002:7; Beck, 1997; Wals, 2012; Zeyer and Roth, 2011), as will be
discussed. I felt it important, and was given a scholarly opportunity, to [re] consider
my own position as advocate for sustainability, personally, professionally and
empirically.
9
Reading and reflection led to some introspective questions at this time, relating to my
own links to the intellectual, practical, and ethical dimensions of sustainability and
curriculum development in H.E. (Torrés, 1999), specifically:
Whose agendas was I representing in my promotion of sustainability in curriculum development?
What was I really implying in my articulations of the purposes, processes and products of this approach to teaching and learning, and how did my colleagues, locally and in wider space and time, confirm or challenge these ideas?
How did D/discourses of sustainability relate to the sorts of social and cultural changes I envisioned as both positive and necessary?, and
What was my role in this process of curriculum development as a lecturer in HE and how could/should this embody sustainability?
In part this challenge also emerged from my own practice, where curriculum
developments focused on sustainability seemed to be limited within my own
institution, conceptually marginalised and a source of personal frustration and
professional concern at the time. I wondered why the concept of sustainability was
not being embraced. Was it that colleagues did not share concerns? I felt they did.
Or perhaps they felt other concepts or approaches provided more coherence in
curriculum development? I was not sure. Turning my introspective questions into the
context of my collective and relational professional practice, I drew on Sterling
(2004:54 also see e.g. Bowers, 1995; Stables, 2001) who suggested the following
broad areas for investigation of SE:
What sorts of education are appropriate to the conditions of the 21st Century?
Do the discourses of sustainability provide a substantial and coherent base for any necessary revisioning of education?
How far is our conception of the purpose, nature and role of education still informed by largely unexplored norms of the Western, modernist worldview?
Is this worldview adequate for, and appropriate to, the post-modern conditions of unsustainability, uncertainty and complexity in which we live? If not, are there others?
10
Here I felt a space emerging that would be critically sensitive to both my own
interests and goals, but grounded in an enhanced understanding of these in my own
professional context, where I needed to ‘listen’ to the cultural ‘beat’ of the system and
‘dance’ with it. (Meadows, 2001; Alkire, 2008). In her article, ‘Dancing with Systems’
Donnella Meadows offered an overarching sentiment for my inquiry at this time, and
throughout:
The future can't be predicted, but it can be envisioned and brought
lovingly into being. Systems can't be controlled, but they can be
designed and redesigned. We can't surge forward with certainty into a
world of no surprises, but we can expect surprises and learn from
them and even profit from them. We can't impose our will upon a
system. We can listen to what the system tells us, and discover how
its properties and our values can work together to bring forth
something much better than could ever be produced by our will alone.
(Meadows, 2001: online)
This choice highlighted perhaps the ‘old [green] hippy’ in me, as will be discussed,
with notions of dancing through life lovingly, of hope and optimism, and implicit
constructions of community echoing what might be considered romantic idealism, a
way of thinking that itself was perhaps limiting my own sense of identity and agency
(Emirbayer and Mische, 1998; Biesta and Tedder, 2006; Mezirow, 2000; Sterling,
2004) and wider engagement with sustainability (Blühdorn, 2012; Zeyer and Roth,
2011).
A focus on D/discourse offered potential to objectify and reconsider, through
empirical research, both the topic under investigation and myself as inquirer
(Richardson, 2000: 923-4; Alvesson and Kärreman, 2001; Wetherell, 2001a;
Jørgensen and Phillips, 2002; Caldwell, 2007). While not denying the felt and
embodied nature of my concerns, it was existentially useful to see my/others
11
cognitive and emotional responses in/as discursive practices that link, through a
poststructural lens, identities to culture, politics and power (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985;
Caldwell, 2007; Olssen, 2006), rather than more individualised cognitive, emotional
and relational deficits.
The object of this thesis, therefore, is to offer a distinct and original contribution to
knowledge in terms of the development and application of poststructural and
postecological D/discourse theory into empirical D/discourse analysis (Hajer, 1995;
Alvesson and Kärreman, 2000; Hökkä et al, 2010; Zeyer and Roth, 2011). Using the
concept of D/discourse as a way of focusing on the language of curriculum as
‘language in use’ (Wetherell, 2001a; Reis and Roth, 2007) offered ways of theorizing
curriculum, sustainability and agency through re-viewing the linguistic cultural and
agentic positioning of knowledge, pedagogies and practices. Taking an
‘argumentative approach’ in this endeavour, curriculum was taken as a ‘floating
signifier’ filled with different meanings (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985; Becher and
Trowler, 2001; Hajer, 1995; Tregidga et al, 2011) that could foster educational and
political analysis.
This research seeks to go beyond more general articulations of what sort of
curriculum should, or might, be involved in ESD/SE (Tregidga et al, 2011; Biesta and
Tedder, 2006) – important as they are - to focus on how curriculum, sustainability
and agency are constructed broadly, institutionally and individually. Of course this
study can only offer a suggested construction of how individuals abilities and
environmental issues are discursively related, but as my theoretical framework
highlights it is a novel, yet valid line of inquiry (Biesta and Tedder, 2006; Alkire, 2008;
Coate, 2009), that can further develop this emergent field of empirical research and
12
understanding (Emirbayer and Mische, 1998; Hajer, 1995; Chouliaraki, 2008; Keller,
2013).
Poststructural D/discourse analysis is suggested to enable ‘a more dynamic account
of subjectivity and agency, and their complex intersection with incomplete social
structures’ and in questioning, empirically and reflexively, notions of identity and
interests (Howarth, 2013:4). Here I felt I could contribute to the ‘growing body of
literature that seeks to provide a more critical assessment of sustainability in higher
education’ (Sylvestre et al, 2013: 1368). While the latter authors focus on the
emergence of ‘disciplinary structures’ that become hegemonic in HE more broadly, I
also wanted to focus on discourses generated between individuals in the
organisation, supplementing institutional arguments ‘with broader concerns of social
psychology, particularly the psychology of sharing and of social freedom’ (Sen,
2013:18) and ‘to imply the capacity for willed (voluntary) action’ (Biesta and Tedder,
2006:5; Emirbayer and Mische, 1998; Caldwell, 2007). To generate different ways of
looking at my own organisational ‘beat’ (Meadows, 2001), their ascribed meanings
and my own preferences and dispositions might, I considered, offer both personal
understanding and potential opportunities to facilitate new conversations with
colleagues (Ahearn, 2001;Caldwell, 2007; Alkire, 2008) and the wider academic
community.
D/discourses were explored through theories of risk and reflexive modernity (WCED,
1987; Beck, 1992, 1994, 1997, 1998, 2008; Giddens, 1994; Lash, 1994; Elliott, 2002;
Borne, 2013). These, along with postecological theories, challenge scientific
knowledge, and therefore the HE curriculum to some degree, and through theories of
individualisation and ‘reflexive modernity’ also help focus on the agency of
individuals. A methodology featuring linguistic, semiotic and interpretative strategies
13
and approaches were keys to reading curriculum texts, (Fairclough, 2001; Sylvestre
et al, 2013) and talk (Potter and Wetherell, 1994; Wetherell, 2001a; Hökkä et al,
2010; Zeyer and Roth, 2011), discussed in detail in Chapter 3.
Focus and Key Questions
The focus of my research was on curriculum D/discourses within my institution in the
context of sustainability, ‘reflexive modernity’ and agency. From reading, reflection,
and in part shaped as data collection and analysis progressed, key questions
emerged.
QUESTION 1: What D/discourses of HE, sustainable development/ sustainability and
curriculum are discursively constructed in academic literature, and education policy?
Here the focus, primarily progressed via review of literature in chapter 2, is on the
ways in which economic, socio-cultural and environmental D/discourses construct
meaning and purpose for both curriculum, and sustainability in HE, and how texts
and talk position curriculum agents. Here, a focus on Beck’s theories of risk society
and reflexive modernity proved useful in framing the global and individual aspects of
research (Beck, 1992, 1994, 1997, 1998, 2008; Cohen, 1997; Elliott, 2002; Borne,
2013).
QUESTION 2: What do curriculum texts in my own HE institution [in recent times]
represent as significant knowledge, pedagogies and practices? What priorities and
subject positions/agentic orientations are being articulated, and what are the
implications for sustainability education?
I wondered how my own institutional D/discourses (Alvesson and Kärreman, 2000;
Emirbayer and Mische, 1998) reflect and deflect wider discursive trends. Theories
14
linking the particular to the general were primarily progressed through notions of
‘storylines’ and ‘’discourse coalitions’ suggested by Hajer (1995; Elliott, 2002). While
links are made here to wider articulations of sustainability curricula, D/discourses of
sustainable curriculum development in HE have themselves been criticised as rooted
in the same inherent hegemonic assumptions, ‘root metaphors’ and ‘metaschema’
(Beck, 1998, 2008; Blühdorn, 2002; Bowers, 2003; Gruenewald, 2004), that have
maintained unsustainable actions. This led to my third question.
QUESTION 3: How can postecological theory and discourse analysis using
associated interpretative repertoires reframe and challenge my understanding of
curriculum development, sustainability and agency.
Postecological theories highlight, and critique, the symbolic nature of sustainability,
noting how ‘[t]he old conceptual shells are being retained but they are filled with a
different meaning’ (Blühdorn, 2002:7). Postecological interpretative repertoires
(Zeyer and Roth, 2011, 2013), which focus on ‘common sense’ and ‘agentic’
articulations regarding the environment and individual inaction were utilised in
analysis of texts and talk, including my own , through which I could explore cultural
‘common sense’ discursive practices (Gramsci, 1971; Blühdorn, 2002; Wetherell,
2001a; Beck 1994; Gruenewald, 2004; Zeyer and Roth, 2011). Alongside this
curriculum repertoires (Hökkä et al, 2010) looked to discourses that accommodated
hegemonic curriculum Discourse or sought its reform.
QUESTION 4: How is agency articulated within my own institutional context?
To move beyond the dualism ‘between instrumental and normative action’,
Emirbayer and Mische (1998:968) draw on American pragmatism and elements of
European phenomenology that focus on ‘a theory of action that analyses the
15
conditions of possibility’ stressing the constitutive creativity of action’ and ‘the
permanent reorganisation and reconstitution of habits and institutions’ (ibid:969).
This involved a shift of mindset that ‘might point to new initiatives in empirical
research’ (ibid:1005; Peschl, 2007). The emphasis on ‘languages of possibility’
shifted my frame of analysis to focus on the creative and critical nature of discourse
articulated by curriculum developers as active agents.
Question 5: Reflexively, how have my understandings and learning from this process
of research influenced a personal sense of agency?
This was the self-reflexive dimension of this inquiry that has danced with the process
as a whole (Peschl, 2007; Caldwell, 2007). My personal sense of marginalisation
and impotency that had in part prompted this thesis, was reconsidered as ‘decentred
agent’ with the possibility of ‘making a difference’ (Giddens, 1984 cited in Caldwell,
2007:2; Lash, 1994, 2003). Re-viewing the process and attention to my ‘own agentic
orientations’ and their ‘imaginative recomposition and critical judgement’ (Emirbayer
and Mische, 1998:1010;) was an important aspect of inquiry for which Peschl (2007:
141-142) was particularly useful in considering my ‘epistemic dance with reality’ as
discussed below and in Chapter 3. Before moving on to outline my empirical study
and this thesis, I briefly touch on some key terms that will begin the initial framing of
my inquiry.
16
Key Terms
Postmodernism and/or Reflexive Modernity
A key D/discourse that binds together my focus on higher education, sustainability
and agency involves notions of rapid change, a new postmodern era of instability,
innovation and contradiction. As Carneiro suggests:
Education – the supreme social function – is “caught” in the transition of millennia between “two fires”, two kinds of society. Ever more placed on the thin borderline between stability and change, between preservation and innovation, education undergoes unprecedented tensions. Indeed, education is a mirror of all contradictions that strike our modern societies. (Carneiro, 2011:3)
Higher Education and change is expressed in similar terms:
Today’s universities appear to be caught between two trends: one that is hegemonic, and another that is emerging but still marginal. The hegemonic trend builds upon the industrial society model of fragmentation, prescription, management, control, and accountability, while the marginal trend is based on integration, self-determination, agency, learning, and reflexivity (Unterhalter and Carpentier 2010 cited in Peters and Wals, 2013: 86).
Robinson (2001:91) suggests technological change demands a change of
educational paradigm:
The present rate and scale of technological change means that we are facing a paradigm shift in the ways in which we live and earn our livings. It needs to be met by a comparable paradigm change in how we think about education. We need to rethink some of the fundamental ideas that we have come to take for granted as simple common sense: about education, intelligence and ourselves.
Sterling calls for a paradigm shift towards sustainable education, where the concept
offers, he suggests, a ‘[g]ateway to a different view of curriculum, of pedagogy, of
organisational change, of policy and particularly of ethos’ (Sterling, 2004: 55). Orr
too calls for seismic change in education on the horizon of environmental crisis:
17
The crisis we face is first and foremost one of mind, perceptions, and values; hence, it is a challenge to those institutions presuming to shape minds, perceptions, and values. It is an educational challenge. More of the same kind of education can only make things worse. (Orr, 1994:27).
Current literature is replete with such calls and concerns. According to Barnett and
Coate (2005:16), therefore, ‘[t]he idea of curriculum goes to the heart of what we
take Higher Education to be, of what it might be and should be in the 21st century’
(Bowers, 1995; Stables, 2001).
Whether these times represent a fundamental postmodern shift in contemporary
society is itself contested. Postmodernism involves modes of thinking, a style of
philosophy and kind of writing that forms a matrix for theoretical consideration of
society, culture and history (Agger, 1991), which challenges notions of modernity
discussed further in Chapter 2. Particularly pertinent to this study are D/discourses
of ‘risk society’ (WCED, 1987; Beck, 1994, 1998, 2008; Giddens, 1998; Lash, 1994;
Sousa, 2011), where demographic, technical and global changes deny the future
certainty or predictive capacity of knowledge, perhaps striking at the heart of HE
curriculum development in a knowledge economy (Brown, 2011; Sousa, 2011).
Constructions of reflexive rather than post modernity involve, for the authors, a
situation which engenders self-critical examination of our actions and agency.
Personal responsibility to continually create and recreate ourselves in this process
prompts solutions that are individual rather than collective (Reay, 2003; Sousa, 2011)
and where, therefore, failure is seen as personal rather than related to circumstances
beyond individual control, resonating my own framing of and in part justification for
this thesis above. Links can be made between D/discourses of sustainability, risk,
reflexive modernity and notions of agency in which agency becomes both more
18
necessary and difficult to achieve, bound up as it is in a web of alternative ways of
seeing and ‘part of a reflective process connecting personal and social change’
(Giddens, 1991: 32; Beck, 1992; Elliott, 2002). Reflexivity, and notions of the self as
‘reflexive project’ does not for Beck imply a ‘hyper-Enlightenment culture’, however,
‘but rather an unintended self-modification of forms of life’ (Elliott, 2002: 301),
characterised by scepticism and ‘as if’ alternatives, based on choice but with
inadequate knowledge. This suggests a fairly limited space for agency, also noted in
postmodernism and poststructuralism (Caldwell, 2007) and discussed further in
Chapter 2.
Key Terms
D/discourse
The importance of language within socio-cultural realms has been acknowledged as
a means by which we socially construct our worlds, and there has been a shift of
emphasis towards poststructural D/discourse research and analysis (Agger, 1991).
Luke (2002:3; Chouliaraki, 2008) suggests that '[n]ew forms of social life in advanced
capitalist societies turn on text and discourse' as a way of developing cultural
understanding. As a philosophy attention to D/discourse offers a range of theories
relating to ‘texts’, institutional critiques, and concepts and forms of analysis of power
which are relevant and significant for, although underutilised in, the study of
education (Peters and Humes, 2003:112). D/discourse can be conceptualised,
according to Keller (2013:2; Wetherell, 2001a), as ‘a social, psychological and textual
phenomenon involved in the creation of relatively coherent public and private
meanings’, and involving ‘more or less successful attempts to stabilize, at least
19
temporarily, attributions of meaning and orders of interpretation and thereby to
institutionalise a collectively binding order of knowledge’. Here the argumentative
political nature of educational curriculum D/discourse was noted and pursued
empirically.
A strength of Laclau and Mouffe’s (1985) poststructural D/discourse theory
(Jørgensen and Phillips, 2002; Tregidga et al, 2011; Borne, 2013; Howarth, 2013;
Iversen, 2014), is that it helps progress research into sustainability through its
attention to fixity [hegemony] in and through D/discourse, but also pays attention to
the multiplicity and contestability inherent, enabling educational and political analysis
(Hajer, 1995; Alvesson and Karreman, 2000). For Tregidga et al (2011: 4):
Dominant discourses succeed by displacing alternative modes of argument and forms of activity; by marginalising radically different discourses; by naturalising their hierarchies and exclusions presenting them in the form of ‘common sense’; and by effacing the traces of their own contingency, [although a] successful hegemony will always seek to render itself contestable.
Hajer (1995: 44; Bingham, 2010) also discusses the hegemonic yet contested
political nature of environmental D/discourse and for him discourse analysis ‘primarily
aims to understand why a particular understanding of the environmental problem at
some point gains dominance and is seen as authoritative, while other understandings
are discredited’. This does not however assume coherence of or in single
environmental D/discourses, and this plurality can be a site for social action (Hajer,
1995: 58).
Davies and Harré (1990:45; Becher and Trowler, 2001; Macfarlane, 2004) in their
discussion of Discourse as institutionalised use of language and language-like
systems suggest that notions of institutional identity and concensus are also more
fragmented than this homogenising term might imply, where diversity can occur
20
along disciplinary, political, cultural and small group lines and around specific topics
such as sustainability. However, institutional and educational ‘conceptual schemes’
(Davies, 2000:89) shape and potentially limit categories of speech available to
individuals, becoming for the author ‘static repertoires located primarily in the mind of
each individual thinker or researcher almost as a personal possession’. Shifting
emphasis from orders of Discourse to discoursing subjects, as noted, also envisaged
a ‘multi-faceted public process through which meanings are progressively and
dynamically achieved’ (Davies and Harré, 1990:45; Davies, 2000:89; Reis and Roth,
2007; Karlberg, 2008).
Conceptualising D/discourse as social action enables a view of language as
constructive and constitutive of social life rather than purely reflective of it, and this
allowed a measure of ‘situated objectivity’ considered important in researching my
own professional context. As Wetherell notes:
In discourse research, decisions about the truth or falsity of descriptions are typically suspended. Discourse analysts are much more interested in studying the process of construction itself, how ‘truths’ emerge, how social realities and identities are built and the consequences of these, than working out what ‘really happened’. Part of what is meant then, by the ‘turn to discourse’ is this epistemological stance which reflects the broader cultural and intellectual shifts of postmodernism. (Wetherell, 2001a:16).
Curriculum
The focus/lens through which I sought to view D/discourses of sustainability and
agency was curriculum. Philosophically, our considerations of curriculum, and
education more broadly, involve a statement of values, a moral compass and an
‘abiding engine of ideas’ (Hansen, 2007:7). Education is involved in constituting
human consciousness (Gramsci, 1971), with language seen as the carrier of our
21
political and philosophical presuppositions. Kelly (2009) speaks of the ‘educational’
curriculum to provoke philosophical consideration of purpose. He suggests politically
sensitive questions need to be asked in relation to ideas of legitimate knowledge,
power, control, access, pedagogies and theories of learning linked to student
biographies, as they have clear implications for practice. This for me echoed
sentiments of the need for increased curriculum theorization in contemporary
unsustainable times noted above.
The term “curriculum” for Thomas et al (2012: 581) involves both content and
process and ‘is comprised of the formal learning experiences provided to students,
and which in turn is the sum of the knowledge (or subject content) that is conveyed,
plus the understanding that is generated through the pedagogy (or process) that is
used’. The authors (ibid.: 841-2) suggest that educators in HE play a key role in both
constructing sustainability conceptually and practically, and hence, ‘[a]cademic
development for sustainability education should enable educators to develop
sustainability education praxis’.
Young (1971:24) described curricula as ‘social inventions’, and Goodson (1997)
noted curriculum to be a social construction grounded in the past, activated in the
present and creative of the future. Goodson’s conceptualization seemed particularly
pertinent in recognition of the epistemic, active and philosophical dimensions of
‘curriculum’ that resonated well with my focus on change and sustainability noted
above and discussed further in Chapter 2. The curriculum is seen as being at the
heart of education, since it defines the integrated, holistic, narrative and public nature
of education, and is also a primary locus of the discourse bound up with education
(Connelly & Xu, 2007). For Young, echoed by Carneiro (2011) above:
22
the history, the social divisions and the many competing interests and value
systems found in a modern society are expressed in the curriculum…
likewise, curriculum debates, implicitly or explicitly, are also debates about
alternative views of society and its future. (Young, 1998:9)
The changes, ontological uncertainties and epistemic fragmentation in the twenty first
century highlighted by D/discourses of unsustainability and risk suggests the need for
ongoing, if not renewed focus on curriculum theorizing, so as to continue ‘to engage
in complicated conversations with our academic subjects, our students and
ourselves’ (Pinar, 2004:9). Barnett and Coate (2005) have argued that in higher
education it is important to get a better understanding of how the curriculum is
intertwined with the social and historical contexts of universities, and of the wider
world in which universities are situated. They contend that educators have only a
limited understanding of the multiple perspectives and tensions that shape curriculum
development, and of how different voices form interdependent relationships between
individual actors and their local/global contexts. Coate (2009), in continuing this
argument, suggests that the curriculum is a manifestation of practices and values
within the university and offers enormous potential for understanding questions of
purpose, participation, power and struggles for disciplinary control. This lack of
curriculum theorising, for Coate, represents a substantial gap in current educational
research, what Macfarlane (2004) might call part of a ‘self-regarding agenda’,
something that I personally hoped to challenge.
I take curriculum within this thesis in this broad sense as a word that is adjectival and
active in its epistemic, pedagogic, philosophical and teleological dimensions, linking
teaching and learning and questions of power, subject positions and purpose. Like
sustainability, curriculum is conceived in argumentative and interpretative ways, as
will be discussed.
23
Sustainable Development and Sustainability
Sustainable development for some is a liberal reformist ideal and globalised policy
prescription that, while still economically driven, brings ideas and measures of social
equality, and environmental quality into ‘development’ thinking and [educational]
practice, providing a ‘triple bottom line’ by which we should evaluate change (Dawe
et al, 2005). The socially constructed and contested nature of sustainable
development has challenged contemporary HE, and each institution and individual,
to rethink their roles, purposes and curriculum practices, one of a number of such
challenges (Brown, 2011; Singh and Little, 2011; Sousa, 2011; Carneiro, 2011; King,
2011), creating perhaps a source of the angst of reflexive modernity.
Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) involves something of a synthesis of
environmental and development educations, part of a globalised policy Discourse
(Sterling, 2004; Wals, 2012), which culminated in the United Nations Decade of
Education for Sustainable Development (DESD, UNESCO – 2005-14), interestingly
the timescale covered by my own institutional documents used in this research. The
DESD ‘implies providing the learners with the skills, perspectives, values and
knowledge to live sustainably in their communities’ (UNESCO, 2002: online),
stressing the normative and teleological emphasis and centrality of individual, cultural
and global values in this endeavour:
Understanding your own values, the values of the society you live in and the values of others around the world is a central part of educating for a sustainable future. Each nation, cultural group and individual must learn the skills of recognising their own values and assessing these values in the context of sustainability (UNESCO, 2005: 3)
However, there are multiple educational and curriculum D/discourses and
approaches, often linked to the ‘conceptual shells’ of earlier models, discussed in
24
some detail in Chapter 2, that try, with varying emphases to move away from
associated notions of development and modern ideas and knowledge of nature and
each other (Askew and Carnell, 1998; Selby, 1999, 2005; Blewitt, 2004; Sterling,
2001, 2004). One particular emphasis, as suggested and discussed further in the
chapters that follow, involves D/discourses of the individual and education, agency
and change [or transformation] through learning that can discursively generate,
perhaps, more sustainable ways of being.
Agency
D/discourses of agency lie at the heart of education (Biesta and Tedder, 2006). The
active emphasis of agency as opposed to the determined nature of action has been
for the authors a key sociological consideration, although they note drawing on
Marshall (1998) that if it is to be more broadly conceptualised it should ‘draw
attention to the psychological and social psychological make-up of the actor, and to
imply the capacity for willed (voluntary) action’ (Biesta and Tedder, 2006:5). Agency
for Newman and Dale (2005:482) ‘is necessary for citizens to be able to adapt to
their sociocultural environment, and more importantly to respond and transcend
tragedy and crisis’. For the authors, like Biesta and Tedder, agency is both
individual and relational in nature. Agency can be enhanced, they claim ‘when
people feel they can influence the process, that their voices are being heard, and that
they can make a difference’ linking to the power of D/discourse and institutional
practices (Newman and Dale, ibid.). As an active agent involved in both curriculum
development and as researcher of my own professional context, notions of agency
and reflexivity became central avenues in the research process. While for some this
might be constructed as post-modern narcissism (Smith, 2000), critical and
25
theoretical situation of myself in empirical inquiry, I hope, will dispel this sense of my
research.
Personal Positioning
Initial and ongoing reflexivity:
forces us to come to terms not only with our choice of research problem and with those with whom we engage in the research process, but with ourselves and with the multiple identities that represent the fluid self in the research setting (Guba and Lincoln, 2005:212).
For Lash (1994:154; Caldwell, 2007), personal positioning should begin with the
situated self in a matrix of background practices. Curriculum development is an area
of professional practice and social responsibility where academics still have a
modicum of autonomy, and hence a professional responsibility to consider the
concepts, theories, issues and debates involved (Macfarlane, 2004; UNESCO, 2008;
HEFCE, 2009; Orr, 1994; Bowers, 2001; Cortese, 2003). While my original position
in this context and my study tended to follow the sense that ‘professional concern
with curriculum development is compatible and probably synergistic with a
professional concern with sustainable development’ (Gough and Scott, 2001:103), I
wanted to create room for theoretical, empirical and reflexive doubt.
Given the inherently political nature of education and knowledge and its empirical
nature that bridges the political, cultural and existential dimensions of study,
reflexivity is seen as both politically desirable and a philosophical necessity (Davies
and Harré, 1990; Agger, 1991; Langenhove & Harré, 1993; Tan and Moghaddam,
1995; Maton, 2003). In its constructive and relational nature, such positioning is
linked both to agentic ideas of self-identity, concept and esteem within cultural
contexts where we present ourselves in certain ways (Goffman, 1963; O’Donaghue,
26
2007). This therefore involves notions of continuity and discontinuity, a multiplicity of
discursive selves, where selfhood itself is in part a product of D/discourse through
which ‘we position ourself to ourself’ (Tan and Moghaddam, 1995: 389). For the
authors:
[a] reflexive position in internal discourse, then, is a figurative concept through reference to which one’s moral and personal attributes as a speaker are compendiously collected by oneself so that one’s speech-acts can be made intelligible and relatively determinate to oneself (Tan and Moghaddam, 1995:390).
Caldwell (2007:2) drawing on his four key components of ‘decentred agency’
suggests self-reflexivity is a mode of self-formation and identity that provides an
alternative to the limited reflexivity of rationalist models of agency. I return to this in
chapter 3.
An important recognition in this endeavour is that this thesis links to a Professional
EdD. As such my practitioner enquiry warrants brief contextualisation in light of
debates surrounding the professional and action oriented nature of HE teaching and
research that helped shape the theoretical and empirical nature of my thesis and
suggested my focus on personal agency. Schön (1998) constructed the concept of
professional [teaching] practice as significantly different from other working contexts.
Using Hughes’ (1959) idea of the professional as ‘one who makes a claim to
extraordinary knowledge in matters of great human importance’ and Dewey’s (1933)
notion of ‘traditions of calling’ (cited in Schön, 1998:32), he spoke of professions as
having an ‘appreciative system’ of shared values, preferences, norms and
conventions of action, institutional settings and units of activity which constitute
acceptable professional conduct (ibid.:33). As noted these notions of shared values
in HE have been contested, and ‘[w]ithin most professions the concept of service
results in an ongoing discussion of ethical issues as they impact on practice’
27
(Macfarlane, 2004:21; Becher and Trowler, 2001). This resonates for some a
‘postmodern’ notion of professionalism in contemporary educational practice and
research.
Hargreaves conceptualises this postmodern context as one ‘where teachers deal
with a diverse and complex clientele, in conditions of increasing moral uncertainty,
where many methods of approach are possible, and where more and more social
groups have an influence and a say’ (Hargreaves, 2000: 231). The complexity,
diversity and inherent ontological uncertainty and epistemological fragmentation
discoursed has, alongside other conceptions such as the autonomous and collegial
professional noted by Hargreaves, ‘muddied the waters’ in terms of epistemic and
moral concensus or authority in contemporary HE. This has also been linked to
critical discourses of reflexive modernity (Beck, 1994; 1998; 2008) where our flexible
and fluid ‘selves’ in terms of espoused values and values in use, multiple roles,
affiliations and identities (Gough and Reid, 2000; Lash, 1994; Caldwell, 2007; Biesta,
2011), resonate for me the necessity of personal and systemic understandings, and
a responsibility to research the ‘shifting sands’ of practice. According to Huckle ‘[w]e
face related crises of ecological, economic, social, cultural and personal
sustainability’ (Huckle, 2008:342), and all felt very ‘real’ to me at this time.
In many ways, these trends, tensions, and questions of responsibility, and my
personal engagement with them as a student and professional practitioner in HE,
also prompted my initial interest in this focus of inquiry, this thesis truly felt like an
epistemic dance (Peschl, 2007) with D/discourses of purpose, process and potential
of curriculum in/as sustainability. Macfarlane (2004) suggests HE, and hence I, fail
to critically examine our own practices sufficiently, and Cortese (2003:18) highlights
our moral responsibility to engage in such enquiry:
28
Higher education institutions bear a profound, moral responsibility to
increase the awareness, knowledge, skills, and values needed to
create a just and sustainable future. Higher education plays a critical
but often overlooked role in making this vision a reality. It prepares
most of the professionals who develop, lead, manage, teach, work in,
and influence society’s institutions, Higher education has unique
academic freedom and the critical mass and diversity of skills to
develop new ideas, to comment on society and its challenges, and to
engage in bold experimentation in sustainable living. Why, then, is it
so averse to risk and difficult to change?
I offer here an initial sense of self as researcher and researched in light of my
discussion so far.
I was born in Chatham, Kent in 1958, and am a white woman from a working class
background in a middle class profession. I suffer from a range of minor disabilities
that I tend to link to aging, although my stories change, and I often exclude the
darker times in terms of my autobiography. From the age of four until I was eighteen
I lived in the same village of Hoo St. Werburgh in Kent, having previously lived in a
caravan on the Isle of Grain. My early life was remarkably ‘normal’, stable and
structured family life and education. I attended the infant and primary schools within
the village, and on passing my ‘eleven plus’ went to Rochester Girls Grammar
School until I had completed my ‘A’ levels. Being half German, working class,
overweight and female had, I felt, resulted in a sense of being treated differently and
unfairly on occasion with implications for identity and self-esteem. I was, seemingly,
a Nazi, fat and ugly, poor and needy, and as one English teacher highlighted at
grammar school, lacking in cultural and linguistic capital [‘things are not funny Susan,
they are amusing’], a comment that has remained with me for over 40 years. The
linguistic power of negative positioning, and its embodiment, did not go unnoticed
even from an early age. Growing up in the ‘youth culture’ of the 1960s and 1970s,
29
although I still feel I have growing up to do, perhaps made me a postmodern child,
adult educator and researcher as Usher and Edwards (1994) suggest.. Reading
their account, for which they draw on Bourdieu (1989), was one of the many times
that I ‘saw myself’ in theory which was then taken up in a narrative of self, explaining
actions and responses to some degree, and forming part of a more temporally
consistent identity.
Usher and Edwards note my lifestyle, and educational/research style perhaps, has
been shaped by a time of ‘counter-cultural informality and hedonism’ (ibid:190;
Gough and Reid, 2000), which rejects everything ‘which is finite, definite and final. In
this I avoid personal, relational and epistemic ‘competitions, hierarchies and
classifications’ and ‘above all’ hierarchies of knowledge, theoretical abstractions or
technical competencies. I am for Bourdieu, as Usher and Edwards note, disposed to
cultural equality and diversity, and emphasise experiential learning, the personal and
existential nature of life, uncertainty and reflexivity. In fighting taboos, I could also
cite my affiliation with sustainability conceptually, discursively and practically to be
evidence of this inherent position and focus.
Much of my learning at school, however, involved what I consider now to be
functional curriculum approaches, and positivist philosophies and I can, through
adoption of this D/discourse, excuse my lack of motivation as somehow counter-
cultural, although I did have a measure of success in terms of accredited
achievement. Following school and a ‘mind-numbing’ if in hindsight useful year at
secretarial college, and still unable to find an intellectual or social niche that I wished
to occupy, I ‘rebelled’, went travelling and ‘living’, framed as important experiential
learning, then ‘settling down’ to have my first child in 1982. I divorced and returned
30
to education [rather than a career] in 1992, and had my second child in 1993 while
studying for my degree in Geography and Development Studies.
This was the year of the Rio Earth Summit and, given my studies, sustainable
development was a critical focus, and became a key interest in my undergraduate
studies. My MA in Tourism and Social Responsibility continued my interest and focus
on sustainability, which has subsequently been reconsidered in relation to my
professional practice through my studies for PGCE and now in relation to my
doctorate.
I began teaching in HE in 2000, at first on a temporary, part-time basis that two years
later blossomed, fortunately, into a full-time contract. I have always held a wide
range of academic interests, and have taught on programmes focused on
Development Studies, Geography, Education Studies, Youth and Community
Studies, and the holistic and systemic nature of sustainability enabled me to engage
them all, although perhaps not in depth and thus for some perhaps ‘expertise’. I
have never wished to specialise particularly, and my varied interests, and assertions
that all arguments have an element of reason within them, depending upon which
temporal, spatial or human scale and criteria one considers, has often confused my
understanding rather than the contrary. Was this evidence of my own position in
reflexive modernity I wondered. The emphasis in much of my learning [and teaching]
surrounding ideas of globalization, sustainability, culpability, responsibility and our
capability to attend to if not ameliorate social and environmental issues and
inequalities was met with, or led to, my initial sense of personal and professional
malaise, yet I remained hopeful. While HE curriculum change alone is not
sufficient in terms of a more sustainable education, (Tilbury et al, 2005; Sterling,
2008), or whether this is a necessary concept around which to organise curriculum
31
was put under a more sceptical gaze. This felt a necessary focus of inquiry, lying at
the heart of personal and institutional practice that could offer a more refined
characterization of the socio-cultural dimensions of sustainability oriented curriculum
design (Reis and Roth, 2007).
Reflexive positioning was useful in drawing attention to my ‘poststructural
uncertainties’, as Smith (2000) might call them, and theories of agency, reflexivity
and transformation were useful in framing this dimension of the research process, in
trying to re-centre my decentred self (Caldwell, 2007; Biesta and Tedder, 2006).
Postmodernist emphases self and identity as ‘decentered, relational, contingent,
illusory, and lacking any core or essence involving a general orientation’ (Gecas and
Burke, 1995 cited in Levine, 2005:176; Jørgensen and Phillips, 2002; Caldwell, 2007)
could be seen as a decent into nihilism. Levine challenges this decentred
D/discourse of self, however, through his notion of ‘ego identity’, where centring
relates to challenges to our sense of self. This links to notions of transformative
learning and agency that I hoped to address through my final question above.
Transformation
In transformation theory, D/discourse has been envisaged as the specialized use of
dialogue devoted to searching for, and assessment and justification of our
interpretation or belief (Mezirow, 2000: 10). Focusing more closely on transformation
and discourse, Mezirow notes:
Transformative learning is learning that transforms problematic frames
of reference—sets of fixed assumptions and expectations (habits of
mind, meaning perspectives, mindsets)—to make them more
inclusive, discriminating, open, reflective, and emotionally able to
change. Such frames of reference are better than others because
32
they are more likely to generate beliefs and opinions that will prove
more true or justified to guide action (Mezirow, 2003: 58-9).
He suggests that this involves ‘a willingness to construe knowledge and values from
multiple perspectives without loss of commitment to one’s own values’ (Mezirow,
2000:12-13). Similarly, Peschl (2007) suggests transformative learning involves a
particular attitude in research and learning. Triple-loop learning for Peschl and
Sterling involves the existential dimension, the self beyond competencies, personal
skills, personality and tacit knowledge that moves us into the domain of wisdom and
‘profound existential change’ involving ‘the will, the heart, finality and purpose’.
While still a construction, there is less freedom for manoeuvre, in some ways
suggesting formation of a new hegemony, discussed in due course. As with
Mezirow, this is more an attitude in the process involving a state of mind, of
‘presencing’ (Peschl, 2007:139; Biesta, 2005), what Mezirow (2000) discusses as
epoché (given his phenomenological framing). Presencing is the ‘intimate
epistemological dance with reality’ (Peschl, 2007:141-2), and for Sterling involves
experience of challenges and threats to existing beliefs and ideas which may involve
resistance and perturbation:
Epistemic learning can be deeply uncomfortable, because it involves a restructuring of basic assumptions caused by the recognition of ‘incoherence’ between assumptions and experience. This crisis experience can be traumatic – although for some it is inspiring – and can be a lengthy process over time as mental models undergo radical change’ (Sterling & Baines, 2002 cited in Sterling, 2010-11: 25).
In many ways, this focus drew attention to my own desires for institutional curriculum
change and my own sense of incoherence between an assumed need for
sustainability as an overarching concept, and experience of indifference or
resistance. I felt in this I was perhaps silencing other ways of viewing the situation,
and my own ways of seeing it. The process for these authors involves being patient,
33
receptive and epistemologically humble, allowing new ideas and changes to emerge
and converge [crystallize] and manifests itself as a plan of action, and here I was
hopeful.
Framework of empirical study
My focus on D/discourses of curriculum and sustainability, discursive orders and
agency, as noted, drew on theoretical traditions that sought to provide different ways
of looking at the data, influenced by poststructural theories of knowledge and
language within postmodern notions of cultural stability and change (Agger, 1991).
For Jørgensen and Phillips:
[the use of a specific theory in the production and analysis of material enables researchers to distance themselves from their everyday understanding of the material, a process which is crucial to social constructionist research (Jørgensen and Phillips, 2002: 207).
D/discourse theories were therefore further contextualised by socio-cultural
conceptualisations of reflexive modernity and risk, challenging political and academic
D/discourses of knowledge society (Brown, 2011; Sousa, 2011), sustainability and
individual and collective agency, and drawing in the cross fertilisation of academic
and popular knowledge through the networks and flows of fluid modernity (Bauman,
2000; Robinson, 2001; Blühdorn, 2002; Hökkä et al, 2010; Zeyer and Roth, 2011),
discussed further in Chapter 2. This was a conceptual space in which empirical
D/discourse analysis could ‘raise profound debates regarding issues of power,
agency, the nature of subjectivity and contestation’ (Wetherell, 2001a: 27).
The focus of empirical research is directed to the study of ‘texts’ and ‘talk’ in my own
HE institution that could be seen as part of the discursive fabric of curriculum in the
34
context of sustainability (Reid and Petocz, 2009) one of a number of discourses that
articulate and influence the potential, purposes and processes of education (King,
2011; Sousa, 2011). Different framings and readings of D/discourse were progressed
in complex ‘epistemological dances’ (Peschl, 2007) between ‘discursive orders’ and
‘discoursing subjects’ as ‘reflexive agents’ (Hajer, 1995; Emirbayer and Mische,
1998; Ahearn, 2001; Wetherell, 2001a, 2001b; Caldwell, 2007; Tregidga et al, 2011).
In undertaking research through this theoretical lens knowledge can be viewed as a
social construction (Gergen, 1994; Gough and Reid, 2000), research as a craft skill
(Seale, 1999, 2012) or art and involves interdisciplinary study (Biesta, 2011; Sterling,
2010-11; Peschl, 2007). Indeed ‘[i]nterdisciplinary research is seen as more likely to
be informed by values, more oriented toward real-world problems and more focused
on wider societal benefits’ (Cromby, 2007: 150) as I felt this research to be. Laclau
and Mouffe’s (1985) discourse theory helps focus research from attempts at
definition to the ‘discursive terrain’ and the ‘politics and effects of discursive struggle’
(Tregidga et al, 2011:10). Taking a poststructural perspective is considered to help
minimise animosity, antagonism, or hegemonic regulation in the research process, in
‘accepting the existence of socially constructed multiple truths’ (Gough and Reid,
2000:53; Jørgensen and Phillips, 2002), a consideration given my involvement in the
context of research. Through methodological shifts between questions involving
social, political, rhetorical and psychological D/discourse analytic approaches
(Wetherell, 1998, 2001a, 2001b; Fairclough, 2001), the emphasis was on using a
range of objectifying and interpretative techniques through which to reconstruct and
review the data thus challenging myself to empirically, professionally and reflexively
engage with these ideas (Denzin and Lincoln, 2011).
35
There are, according to MacLure (2003:174) two broad traditions in D/discourse
analysis. The first European tradition draws on the philosophical and cultural nature
of D/discourse associated with poststructuralism. The second tradition aligns with
Anglo-American linguistics, and I danced with both. ‘Discourse analysis is a precise
application of content analysis in a qualitative context’ (Sarantakos, 2005: 309) which
focuses on the constructive and action oriented nature of ‘communication, text,
language, talk and conversation, but also with the ways of seeing, categorizing and
reacting to the social world in everyday practices’.
In terms of written documents, the emphasis was on Discourse (Alvesson and
Kärreman, 2000; Wetherell, 2001b) where texts were taken as examples of
institutional public image building in a competitive system. My focus was on two
institutional Learning and Teaching Strategies 2005-09 and 2010-14, and one
undated Sustainability ‘Statement’. The strategies covered the period of the DESD
(2005-2014). Texts were sourced with institutional permission, and as publically
available via my University website at time of access. According to Sylvestre et al
(2013) Strategies, Declarations and other institutional documents can be conceived
of as representative of the consensus of the authoring agency. They also are seen
as useful in that they tend to be pared down to salient features, involving ideal types,
concepts and mental constructions that are often imaginative and utopian in intent
and content (Crotty, 1998:70), linking past, present and future (Goodson, 1996;
Emirbayer and Mische, 1998) conceptualised as involving narratives or storylines
(Hajer, 1995; Harré et al, 1999). The emphasis was on curriculum in the context of
sustainability, the sedimented or ‘durable’ nature of Discourses (Alvesson and
Kärreman, 2000; Sylvestre et al, 2013; Iversen, 2014), although the notion of
36
intertextuality was adopted here to suggest a ‘loose coupling’ rather than
determinism of wider patterns and proclivities (Wetherell, 2000a; 2000b).
Discourse analysis of texts involved a methodology that engaged with data through
the employment of ‘objectifying techniques’ (Thompson, 1984:134; Jørgensen and
Phillips, 2002). In this, linguistic and semiotic tools were applied in a ‘privileged
position’ over the data drawing on poststructuralist theories that envisage
D/discourses operating laterally across local institutional sites, and where texts have
a constructive function in shaping human identities and actions (Keller, 2013). It was
also influenced by Hajer (1995) and Dryzec (1997/2005) who discuss the political
pluralism of environmental discourse which does not assume coherence of or in
environmental D/discourse[s], and this plurality can be a site for social action noted
earlier.
In order to analyse Discourse, Hajer’s ‘argumentative’ approach which
conceptualises discourse as involving discursive hegemony, accomplished through
discourse structuration where actors must use particular discourses to ensure their
‘credibility’, and ‘institutionalisation’, translated into practice through policy
documents (ibid: 60-61). This approach challenges assumptions of unity and
consensus, however, suggesting instead a situation of fragmented and contradictory
D/discourse narratives around which different groups of individuals collect.
Drawing on the above and Laclau and Mouffe (1985; Tregidga et al, 2011) curriculum
was taken as a ‘floating signifier’, filled with different meanings, although with
hegemonic constraints. Discourse analysis was carried out using concepts of ‘orders
of discourse’ (Fairclough, 1995, 2001; Jørgensen and Phillips, 2002), intertextuality
(Fairclough, 1995; Sylvestre et al, 2013) and discursive genres, Wodak and
37
Krzyzanowski’s (2008) and Sylvestre et al’s (2013) concepts of Lexis, Framing and
Structure, and Modality that positioned knowledge, learners and staff in particular
ways. While the terms sustainable development and sustainability were limited in
their use, features of sustainability curricular were applied linguistically and
rhetorically to the data to try to inscribe its position and potential in institutional
articulations. With just one posting relating to Sustainability on the website at the
time [summer 2013], similar analysis was progressed, although also drawing in
Kellert’s (1993) perspectives on ‘nature’ in an effort to focus on environmental and
subject positioning in the informal curriculum.
While we, as teachers, may often feel constrained in our own professional practice,
we are often politically envisaged [and ironically perhaps envision ourselves] as ‘best
placed to change society, by changing the habits and instilling the ideas of future
citizens’ (Tripp,1992:22). The Discourses (Alvesson and Kärreman, 2000) and policy
prescriptions related to ESD resonate this view of education (WCED,1987;
UNESCO: online; HEFCE, 2009), as do ‘critical’ and postmodern [sustainable]
educational thinkers (Orr, 1992; Huckle and Sterling, 1996, Sterling, 2001, 2005,
2012; Scott and Gough, 2001; Hicks, 2004, 2010), although the extent to which this
can be achieved, and the desired outcomes this will explicitly, or more likely
implicitly, influence are highly contested.
The second wave of analysis danced with discourses in four interview transcripts
from semi- structured interviews conducted in 2012. Interviews involved colleagues
who came from different academic disciplines but who all held responsibility for
curriculum design and development. The emphasis here was on individual [agentic],
curriculum and environmental story lines and coalitions, extended through post-
ecological discourse analysis drawing on Zeyer and Roth’s (2011) framework, and
38
curriculum repertoires developed by Hökkä et al (2010). Attention to the routine
arguments, descriptions and evaluations in interview data could highlight, according
to the authors, a way of exploring the ‘possibilities offered by language’, something
also suggested by Emirbayer and Mische (1998) in their focus on agency.
Following this focus on agency, my own D/discourses in curriculum texts and talk
were also analysed. Initial coding and analysis at the time of first reading of texts
and transcripts, followed by an unanticipated gap in my studies, presented a further
reflexive opportunity for engagement and ‘presencing’ in the process (Peschl, 2007;
Biesta, 2005). Here notions of transformation (Mezirow, 2000; Sterling, 2010-11)
also involved attention to earlier analytic and reflective memos (Charmaz, 2006;
Caldwell, 2007; Saldana, 2009).
Overview of this Thesis
In Chapter 2, the literature review will set out a theoretical, conceptual, cultural and
educational context of my research, drawing primarily on academic and policy
D/discourses of higher education, sustainability and curriculum (WCED, 1987,
Jickling, 1992; Hajer, 1995; Dryzec, 1997/2005; Wals and Jickling, 2002; UNESCO,
2002; Blewitt, 2004; Sterling, 2004, 2013; Tilbury, 2011; Wals, 2011) with particular
reference to HE and curriculum development (Cortese, 2003; Bowers, 1995, 2003;
Ryan, 2011; Sterling, 2013). Within this, attention will be drawn to knowledge,
power, and agency through theories of risk and reflexive modernity (Beck, 1992,
1994, 1998; Lash, 1994; Giddens, 1994; Elliott, 2002; Sousa, 2011; Emirbayer and
Mische, 1998; Ahearn, 2001; Newman and Dale, 2005; Biesta and Tedder, 2006).
Chapter 3 outlines and discusses my research framework, paradigm, ontological and
epistemological position, methodology, methods of data collection and analysis,
39
alongside ethical considerations and reflexive positioning in empirical study.
‘D[d]iscourse analysis focuses on the constructive and action oriented nature of
‘communication, text, language, talk and conversation, but also with the ways of
seeing, categorizing and reacting to the social world in everyday practices’
(Sarantakos, 2005: 309). Discourse analysis was progressed using multiple lenses
where understanding and interpreting texts was ‘more like riding a bike than following
a recipe’ (Gadamer, 1975:xi).
Chapter 4 will include detailed analysis and critical discussion of the data as
D/discourse in light of the framework set out, and as emergent from and grounded in
the data and process of analysis. Reflexive moments and movements will be woven
into this research discourse to capture some of the complexity of inquiry, ongoing
consideration of positionality, methodological limitations as they appeared, and the
political and ethical dilemmas that emerged.
In Chapter 5, I will offer some tentative conclusions, reviewing the process and
findings in relation to attendant theories and personal reflexivity, and making
suggestions for further research and practice.
40
Chapter 2: Literature Review
The root causes of environmental problems are located in the very nature of our current social, economic and political systems and in the world views, institutions and lifestyle choices that support them (Fien, 1993a: vii).
The object of this chapter is to present an overview of literature that relates to, and
places into context, the educational and environmental genres of D/discourse
circulating within my own professional context. The emphasis in this review was
primarily to bridge the theoretical and methodological debates that could enable
D/discourse analysis. In this notions of change, risk and agency were key, framed
and scaffolded through attention to Beck’s (1992, 1994, 1998, 2008; Giddens, 1994;
Cohen, 1997; Elliott, 2002; Sousa, 2011; Borne, 2013) social theory and cultural
diagnosis of risk society and reflexive modernity. In relation to risk, genres of policy
D/discourse that emphasise social and environmental issues through a knowledge
society lens were key (Brown, 2011; Sousa, 2011; Dryzec, 1997; Harré et al, 1999;
Blühdorn, 2002). The second thrust of the individual in a cultural situation of reflexive
modernity is linked to agency which in part is shaped through individual agent’s
active engagement in D/discourse (Hajer, 1995; Ahearn, 2001; Elliott, 2002),
coalescing with other D/discourses of purpose, principles and process of HE
curricula (King, 2011; Cochrane and Williams, 2011). In drawing together the global
and local, and in order to focus more explicitly on my own institutional D/discourses
of curriculum and environmental sustainability, Lash’s (2000:47) focus on ‘risk
culture’ was particularly helpful in his suggestion that 'subinstitutional' resources are
a key focus ‘if we are to engage effectively with contemporary risk situations’. Beck
also suggests that, with the loss of state authority, global and local sub-political
realms warrant attention. As Adam and van Loon note:
41
Beck's work speaks to the contemporary western experience of the industrial way of life, and it touches deep fears about the shadow side of the successes of industrialization, scientific progress and technological innovation. Moreover, it depicts the socio-cultural and institutional nature of the environmental crisis which means that solutions too have to be sought in the socio- cultural sphere and the social institutions of that way of life (Adam and van Loon, 2000:12).
The first section of this chapter will focus on contemporary D/discourses surrounding
HE and change, that raise pertinent questions for theorising curriculum development
(Coate, 2009; Pinar, 2004; Barnett and Coate, 2005), linked to academic, economic,
social and increasingly environmental demands for purpose and relevance (Cortese,
2003; Sousa, 2011; King, 2011; Singh and Little, 2011; Cochrane and Smith, 2011) .
In section two I briefly present theories of development and modernity, which have
increasingly included environmental concerns through globalised policy D/discourses
of Sustainable Development (SD) and the implications for HE curriculum. The
breadth of SD and sustainability, incorporating economic, social and environmental
dimensions, and within this different temporal, spatial and normative emphases, was
narrowed within my search and review of literature to focus on environmental and
educational aspects of sustainability, and their discursive manifestations. This
section will be discussed historically, but more specifically, given the focus of my
thesis, in terms of theories of postmodernity, risk and reflexive modernity (Bauman,
2001, 2005; Beck, 1992, 1994, 1998, 2008; Lash, 1994, 2000; Giddens, 1991, 1994;
Elliott, 2001). Here the political and environmental dimensions of D/discourses are
brought to the fore and related to HE curriculum models (Kemmis et al, 1983; Fien,
1993; Askew and Carnell, 1998; Selby, 1999, 2005; Bracher, 2006). While aiding
potential for analysis, these models are seen as representative of loose ‘discursive
orders’ involving particular ‘storylines’ and ‘discourse coalitions’ involving particular
42
interpretative repertoires (Hajer, 1995; Dryzec, 1995, 2005; Harré et al, 1999;
Wetherell, 2000a, Hökkä et al, 2010; Zeyer and Roth, 2011) as will be discussed
more fully below and in Chapter 3. In linking educational and environmental
D/discourses, to theories of political ‘agency’, I particularly drew on Emirbayer and
Mische, 1998; Elliott, 2002; Biesta and Tedder, 2006; Ahearn, 2005; Sen, 2007;
Caldwell, 2007). The final section of this literature review will, in preparation for the
following chapter on methodology and methods, focus on D/discourse as the object
of my empirical research and my own position[s] and perspective[s] within the
debates raised so far.
Global Debates: Higher Education and Change
Higher education currently faces many changes, some externally driven by government policies and changing patterns of social and economic demand and some internally driven by changes in the way knowledge is produced and organised within universities and other ‘knowledge organisations’ (Brennan, 2010: 3).
D/discourses of change in the contemporary university seem to pervade my readings
and conversations in practice as a source of concern. These are often framed in
terms of the corporatization or neoliberalisation of higher education (HE) in part
linked to the waning power of the nation state and the growth of a global marketplace
(Sylvestre et al, 2013; Brown, 2011, King, 2011; Beck, 1994). For many this is a
time, in HE and the social professions more generally, of marketisation, liberalisation,
austerity, and managerialism of provision. This has been progressed through the
introduction and maintenance of neoliberal polices, and attendant prescriptive
models of professional practice, involving calls for more codified, explicit and
systematised institutions (Barnett, 1992:214-5) geared towards individual learning
and achievement. Thurow (1996: 68) suggests that technological change has
43
accelerated this process, and ‘[t]oday knowledge and skills now stand alone as the
only source of comparative advantage. They have become the key ingredient in the
late twentieth century’s location of economic activity’.
The economic importance of higher education is seen as fundamental in the new
global knowledge economy/society (Fairclough, 2001; Wals and Jickling, 2002;
Selby, 1999, 2005; Blewitt, 2004), with key international institutions such as The
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the World
Bank (WB) promoting the significance of education and training as keys to
participation in the new knowledge society (Akkari and Dassen, 2008). For Sousa
(2011:54) reclaiming the production of knowledge has involved institutions and
individuals embracing D/discourses of this ‘knowledge society’ and associated
competition between and within organisations involving meritocratic conceptions of
knowledge that may be, for the author, ill-equipped to deal with the hazards and
uncertainties of the future. In this context it is suggested that we as teachers need
to profit personally and institutionally from selling our knowledge products that have
increasingly to align to those forms of knowledge valued in markets where ‘among its
many dangers is the illusion that we know what we are talking about with reference
to ‘knowledge’ (Weiler, 2006 cited in Sousa, 2011: 57). Singh and Little (2011: 39)
also note contradictions in this knowledge function where in the face of lifelong and
‘lifewide’ learning ‘the dominant knowledge transmission function of HE has been
weakened through technological change and the social purposes accorded to and
demanded of it.
Brown (2011:14) develops this discussion regarding the ‘marketization’ of HE in
recent decades, noting that many HE institutions are involved in ‘quasi-
markets….where no or very little private capital is involved and where the state
44
remains the principal funder and regulator’. This implies, as King (2011:25)
suggests, that globally HE, and specifically my own institution, can be envisaged as a
social rather than material phenomenon. As such it can be conceived of as
ideational, ‘characterized by a distribution of knowledge – the socially-constituted
beliefs and expectations that individuals, universities, and states respectively have of
each other’ incorporating ‘a ‘productive’ or discourse-generated sociality’. This global
system, for the author, both constructs and reflects agent identities alongside
national domestic constructions.
D/discourses of change have increasingly focused attention on the social and
environmental role of HE, where calls for a more active and interventionist curricula
have been placed on us, and/or emerge from our own agency (Cochrane and
Williams, 2010; Emirbayer and Mische, 1998). Learning societies have not only had
to engage with the globalisation of markets, but to respond to the uncertainties these
systemic changes have engendered (Scott and Gough, 2001:102; Blewitt, 2004). As
the European Science Foundation (2012:3) note:
The world is currently facing major challenges and crises. Global change is one such challenge, discoursed as an emergent Anthropocene era where ‘impacts of human activity on the Earth have started to equal the measurable impacts of biogeophysical forces, in speed and intensity, creating a unique situation that poses fundamentally new challenges and requires innovative ways of thinking and acting.
While global issues are well identified and known, the authors continue, their
systemic nature adds to their complexity which ‘cannot be addressed by the
traditional disciplinary scientific approach’ (ibid.) echoing suggestions of risk
(WCED, 1987; Beck, 1992).
Policy internationalism (King, 2011) has shown increasing convergence in
D/discourses of, and prescriptions for what are multiple purposes, roles and functions
45
for the universities of the twenty first century. At one and the same time, curriculum
developers in HE need to meet goals linked to the economic success of all involved,
generation of ‘useful’ knowledge, production of skilled and agentic students, social
inclusion and sustainable development (Sterling, 2004, 2012; Blewitt, 2004;
Cochrane and Williams, 2010; King, 2011). However, homogeneity is less evident in
local contexts, with diversity between and within institutions, and hence
interpretations and practices are diverse. My own institution, for example is situated
in a spatially, temporally and culturally specific context, it is small, has a long history
of social purpose and has only recently become a university, discussed further
shortly.
Change as Risk and Reflexive Modernity
On this horizon of change, Beck’s (1992, 1994, 1998, 2008) theories of risk also offer
a critique of modernity, technology and scientific knowledge, pertinent in terms of
HE’s function in a knowledge society, and given similar critiques in D/discourses of
sustainable development as will be discussed. Cohen notes that ‘the concept of risk
society holds considerable potential because it illuminates three trenchant issues,
namely the liabilities of economic growth, the pervasiveness of hazardous
technology, and the inadequacies of reductionist scientific research’ (Cohen, 1997:
105-6). The author contends that Beck’s articulations of risk society can be viewed
as a radicalisation of Charles Perrow’s ‘normal accident’s’ theory, where due to the
complexity of industrial systems and the extent to which processes are coupled with
one another, technological failures are essentially inevitable.
Beck (1994) suggests that risk society rests on the horizon of industrial society,
where the inherent instrumental rationality of modernity has had unintended or
46
unrecognised systemic consequences for which there are no clear solutions from
science or academia and where, therefore, ‘..the horizon dims as risks grow’ (Beck,
1994:9). In many ways this resonated with my sense of my topic and concerns.
Here a situation emerges where as we know more about what not to do, we are
increasingly uncertain about what we can do in light of potential threats that are out
of order and control, as Beck (ibid: 11-12) notes:
In a political and existential sense, the fundamental question and decision that opens up here is, will the new manufactured incalculability and disorder be opposed according to the pattern of instrumental rational control….or is a rethinking and a new way of acting beginning here, which accepts and affirms the ambivalence – but then with far-reaching consequences for all areas of social action?’
For Beck, however, hegemonic forces are in play, although masked in a fog of
institutional and individual uncertainty:
Risks presume industry, that is, techno-economic decisions and considerations of utility. They differ from ‘war damage’ by their ‘normal birth’, or more precisely, their ‘peaceful origins’ in the centres of rationality and prosperity with the blessings of the guardians of law and order. They differ from pre-industrial natural disasters by their origins in decision-making, which is of course never conducted by individuals but by entire organisations and political groups. (Beck, 1992b: 98).
Lash (2000: 47) suggests that in order to engage with notions of risk, Beck’s
emphasis on risk society could and should be displaced or supplemented by the idea
of 'risk culture'. This would allow a shift of emphasis from the ‘determinate,
institutional, normative, rule bound and necessarily hierarchical ordering of individual
members in regard to their utilitarian interests’ to ‘a reflexive or indeterminate
disordering’ involving ‘non-institutional and anti-institutional sociations’ based on
substantive values that are symbolic rather than rule-bound. In this individuals are
concerned ‘less with utilitarian interests than the fostering of the good life’ based in
47
aesthetic rather than cognitive reflexivity where these sub-institutional resources can
provide the potential to engage effectively with risk situations.
Focusing on individuals and risk, Beck highlights processes of depersonalisation, the
disempowerment of our senses related to the risks generated by development, and
to new levels of self–critique or ‘reflexive modernity’. Beck’s theories of reflexive
modernity are linked to Giddens’ (1991) focus on high modernity and the formation of
‘self-identity’ within the operation of ‘abstract systems’ and diffusion of knowledge
that furthers our sense of risk and undermines our sense of control. This is a
situation in which ‘social practices are constantly examined and reformed in the light
of incoming information about those very practices.’ (Giddens, 1990: 38).
Bauman, who emphasises D/discourses of postmodernism, also spoke of the
individualisation of contemporary society (2001), involving a constantly changing
‘liquid life’ (2005: 2), based in consumption and confession (2005, 2007; Giroux,
2004) where personal identities are shared and opened up to public questioning and
multiple sources of ‘expert’ advice, rather as in this thesis perhaps. Bauman’s
suggested sociological emphasis is therefore on agency, linked to individual agent’s
‘feelings of freedom and dependence’ (1991:175) which he terms their sociality. This
interplay between agents and their ‘habitat’ should be a key focus on inquiry
according to the author. Both Giddens and Bauman suggest political transformations
emergent, where for Giddens, ‘lifestyle’ politics replaces ‘emancipatory’ politics, and
for Bauman, politics is ‘tribal’ shaped by desires for social confirmation and fear.
An ‘active engagement with the self is the subjective backdrop of the risk society’
(Elliott, 2002: 298), featuring ‘novel personal experimentation and cultural innovation
48
against a social backdrop of risks, dangers, hazards, reflexivity, globalization’. As
Elliott notes:
As competent reflective agents, we are aware of the many ways in which a generalized ‘climate of risk’ presses in on our daily activities. In our day- to-day lives, we are sensitive to the cluster of risks that affect our relations with the self, with others, and with the broader culture. We are specialists in carving out ways of coping and managing risk, whether this be through active engagement, resigned acceptance or confused denial (Elliott, 2002:293).
In discussion of knowledge, Beck suggests that science, with its positivist and realist
tendencies, when confronted with ‘its own products, defects and secondary
problems’ (Beck, 1998:155) becomes reflexive, a contradictory position in which
science is a cause, definition and solution (Sousa, 2011) of social and environmental
issues. While this may be imbued with emancipatory potential, at the same time
prevailing ideologies and interested standpoints become immunized from critique,
throwing ‘the door open to a feudalization of scientific knowledge practice through
economic and political interests and self-regarding ‘new dogmas’ (Beck, 1998:157;
Macfarlane, 2004). These new dogmas, such as sustainability in my own case
perhaps, potentially downplay or conceal ways of understanding risks and threats,
having their own potential hegemonic effect.
Risk for Beck (2008; Sousa, 2011) is therefore related to ‘knowledge’ and ‘non-
knowing’, where truth has ‘fractured into hundreds of relative truths’
amalgamating/crossing divides between academic and broader popular/social
domains of knowledge and moving away from technological determinism and
optimism of the knowledge society to situations of uncertainty, and further risk.
Nowotny et al. (2004 cited in Sousa, 2011: 59) note the tension between knowledge
and risk societies is one where:
49
Consumers, patients and ordinary citizens at the mercy of such a runaway production process are cast into the heroic role of having to resist the self-proclaimed authority of those who still make believe that they know and are in control. The risk society is therefore a latent political society, oscillating between public hysteria, tension-ridden indifference and attempts at reform.
Borne (2013:91) links Beck’s reflexive modernity and SD noting synergies that relate
people and environment, and question science, progress and rationality, echoing
post-structural voices. They also open global and local boundaries, address notions
of intergenerational equity and suggest the incompatibility of geological and political
timescapes. He suggests, more optimistically that discourses of risk have ‘facilitated
and catalysed altered epistemological perspectives on many levels that have fed into
methodological innovations as a dialogue is sought between theory and empirical
work’ (ibid: 90). Drawing on Douglas (1972) and constructionism, Borne (ibid:92)
suggests ‘that risk is a culturally perceived phenomena’, as well as having realist
tones, and therefore ‘it is more accurate to talk about various ‘relativisms’ and
‘realisms’ (Burr, 2003 cited in Borne, 2013:92). This he notes allows for and requires
a pragmatic approach that is willing to embrace different perspectives that
emphasise normative and value laden subjectivities. Risk presupposes for Borne,
ideas of choice, calculability and responsibility, and raises questions of whether the
future is regarded as fixed and inevitable or as a subject of human agency.
Beck’s optimism for ‘private reflexivity [as the] prior basis for more public forms’
(1992a:7), can only come about he suggests if one takes account of the more
situated understandings that people have of the world and their place in it. For
Raskin, ‘[t]he shape of the global future rests with the reflexivity of human
consciousness – the capacity to think critically about why we think what we do – and
then to think and act differently’ (Raskin, 2008, cited in Sterling, 2010-11:19; Ahearn,
2001; Sen, 2007).
50
Development and Sustainable Development
Sustainable development is part of a history of development thinking and globalised
policy D/discourse through the systems of international governance noted earlier
(King, 2011; Sousa, 2011; Wals, 2012; Blewett, 2004; Sterling, 2004). Bringing in
and building on similar notions of risk, uncertainty and crisis, it has become a political
rallying cry and policy prescription that has challenged the direction of change.
According to Crush (1995: 8) the languages and practices of development still hold
‘real power’ in the world, ‘...promoting and justifying very real [economic, political,
and social] interventions and practices’. This is closely interwoven with notions of the
modernising project, and maintained dominance of a belief in universal human
progress through society’s ‘increased capacity to design societies in accordance with
rationalist principles’ (Hettne, 2002: 9). For Cornwall (2010: 1) the emphasis is
rooted in D/discourse where ‘[w]ords make worlds. The language of development
defines worlds-in-the-making, animating and justifying intervention in currently
existing worlds with fulsome promises of the possible.’ Development’s ‘buzzwords’,
according to the author, become passwords to funding and influence, and Rist (2010:
22) observes how Discourses of development have been used ‘to convey the idea
that tomorrow things will be better, or that more is necessarily better’. The emphasis
in D/discourses of modernity, of economic man, progress, industrialisation,
consumerism, and individualism have become part of the ‘western mindset’
(Jackson, 2003 cited in Wals and Jickling, 2010). It is this mindset that is also
implicated with the social and environmental issues noted above.
As noted at the outset of this thesis, in recent decades there has been increased
emphasis on, and greater inclusion of environmental concerns and considerations in
globalised development thinking and policy prescription including within HE and
51
curriculum development (Cortese, 2003; Sterling, 2004, 2012; Blewitt, 2004; King,
2011). Sustainable development is a globalised D/discourse that permeates all
aspects of contemporary policy and practice across professional, geographic and
cultural boundaries, and as such the range of literature is huge, diverse, multi-
disciplinary and contextual. While the economic and social purposes of education
have been with us for some time, sustainability as purpose is relatively new in
mainstream HE.
Environmental Concerns and Sustainable Development
Wals (2012: 630) notes that ESD is not rooted so much in local contexts and issues
but international policy, and the broad views of SD that link environments and their
social, cultural, individual, spatial, normative and teleological dimensions of
discursive construction. What we know of today as sustainability or sustainable
development grew largely out of the environmental movement as one challenge to
the emphasis on economic development at the unequal expense of both people and
the environment. This movement was, and remains, critical of modernity and
associated Discourses of development noted above, suggesting that the root causes
or constructions of the environmental crisis require a fundamental questioning of the
values, beliefs and assumptions that underpin modern society (Baudrillard, 1987;
Hajer, 1995; Dryzec, 1997, 2005; Peet and Hartwick, 2009). This crisis for Dickens
‘is both a crisis of the ways in which modern capitalist societies combine with nature,
and a crisis of understanding whereby citizens of those societies fail to understand
their relations with nature’ (Dickens, 1996 cited in Huckle, 2004:2; Orr, 1994, 2009).
52
Heilbroner (1985) suggests the environmental crisis emerged out of the ideological
and cultural changes that fed into and developed from economic and political
liberalism and the project of modernity, where market interactions that rationalized
consumption and commodification were moralised through a focus on Utilitarian
values where ‘what serves the individual, serves society’. Individuals became
regarded as isolated except within market relations and contractual obligations, and
the constriction of political authority was deemed necessary to leave ‘a big space for
the self-determined action of individuals’ as ‘freedom from subservience’ involving
political and intellectual liberty (Heilbroner, 1985:121; Biesta and Tedder, 2006) as
foundations of human agency.
For Peet and Hartwick (2009: 107) it was the combination of two particular historical
perspectives, naturalism and rationalism, ‘into a powerful theory of societal structure
and development [that] was a defining moment in the intellectual history of Western
modernity.’ Naturalism highlighted notions of ‘survival of the fittest’, the
environment’s role in shaping potential for individual and social development and
competitive advantage. Rationalism, for the authors, emphasised our ability to
control nature through ‘thought, logic and calculation’. Characteristic of ‘modernity’
through this constructive lens is a belief in human privilege, progress, and
technological innovation which contributes to a society complacent about ecological
and social exploitation, and ignorant of more spiritual and value’s oriented
considerations and concerns (Selby, 1999, 2005; Robinson, 2004). As a result, the
predominant criterion to assess the value of the non-human world was, and to a
large extent remains, perceived in terms of utility or ‘use value’ for human
endeavours (Baudrillard, 1987: 63-4). Such anthropocentrism has ‘contributed to a
short-sighted, exploitive and unsustainable criterion for progress’ (Coates and Leahy,
53
2006: 3; Cortese, 2003; Wals and Jickling, 2002), and ‘an expanding economy, in
which more and more material goods are produced, consumed and discarded (Clark,
1989 cited in Coates and Leahy, 2006: 4). For the authors (ibid.: 3)
Emerging within this attitude of superiority and exploitation are very powerful beliefs that govern public, industrial and frequently personal decisions. Economism, progressivism, industrialism, consumerism and individualism serve to set the direction of human actions.
Dualism, domination and determinism are noted in discourses of modernity and
associated discourses of development, including to some degree Sustainable
Development as will be discussed. For Huckle (2004:2) these ways of thinking and
acting were in part supported and maintained through the reproductive functions of
HE:
The modern university became an institution that reflected modern reductionism and dualism. Academic divisions of labour separated knowledge into discrete compartments with separate natural and social sciences largely talking past one another. Students failed to understand how knowledge connects, how processes in the social world might combine with those in the biophysical world to produce sustainable development, and how people’s local knowledge can combine with academic knowledge to foster such development.
In international governance and policy development, the Brundtland Report 'Our
Common Future' (WCED, 1987) was pivotal in both defining SD, and in partly
shaping subsequent political and environmental D/discourses that surround its
globalized educational policy prescriptions. The often cited definition of SD was
optimistic in the ability of national governments and local communities to manage
environmental threats and meet ‘basic’ needs:
Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable – to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability for future generations to meet their own needs (WCED, 1987: 8).
Later in the document, the focus on meeting individual and social aspirations was
also noted ‘sustainable development seeks to meet the needs and aspirations of the
54
present without compromising the ability to meet those of the future’ (ibid: 40). The
‘basic needs’ approach, which could be ‘ensured’ emphasises a technical and
managerial discourse and measure of certainty, while ‘seeking to meet aspirations’
suggests less confidence. Of course this could be read in relation to diversity of
aspirations as opposed biological needs, after all participation and cultural rights had
been a backdrop to this document, given its situation within UN discourses of
development focused on integrating environmental policies and development
strategies. However, aspiration[s] could imply, given standard definitions of the
word, breathing/survival and hope/desire/ambition as less certain, involving notions
of risk and uncertainty.
Education for sustainable development [practical and vocational skills for self-
reliance] should, according to this WCED Discourse, be infused with environmental
education ‘throughout the formal education curriculum’ at all levels ‘encompassing
and cutting across the social and natural sciences and the humanities’ (ibid: 113).
Informal and community education were also seen as essential in promoting the
comprehensive knowledge required for sustainability, further linking academic and
civil society in/through D/discourse. Notions of quality linked to ideas of relevance to
local conditions.
‘Our Common Future’ it was suggested is intimately bound to technology which
provided the ‘key link between humans and nature’ (WCED, 1987:60). The WCED
warned however, rather as Beck had, that our knowledge and technical abilities were
insufficient to address social and environmental issues and that ‘the rate of change is
outstripping the ability of scientific disciplines and our current capabilities to assess
and advise’ (ibid: 22/243). This, it was suggested, warranted ‘break[ing] out of past
patterns’, where ‘security must be sought through change’ (ibid: 22/243).
55
Education for Sustainable Development
The links between sustainability and education were further progressed at Rio 1992
(Agenda 21 Ch. 36: 3) when it was noted that:
Education, including formal education, public awareness and training should be recognized as a process by which human beings and societies can reach their fullest potential. Education is critical for promoting sustainable development and improving the capacity of the people to address environment and development issues.
In 2002, Section X of the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI) addressed
the need to integrate sustainable development into formal education at all levels, as
well as through informal and non-formal educational opportunities. It agreed a
commitment to the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable
Development (DESD, UNESCO – 2005-14), which ‘implies providing the learners
with the skills, perspectives, values and knowledge to live sustainably in their
communities’ (UNESCO, 2002: online).
In their International Implementation Scheme, linked to the DESD, UNESCO stress
the centrality of values in this endeavour in stating that:
Understanding your own values, the values of the society you live in and the values of others around the world is a central part of educating for a sustainable future. Each nation, cultural group and individual must learn the skills of recognising their own values and assessing these values in the context of sustainability (2005: online)
Still within a liberal reformist, rights based approach, UNESCO (2005) in their draft
proposal for the DESD listed essential characteristics of ESD, as laid out in Table 1
below.
56
Table 1: Essential Characteristics of ESD (UNESCO, 2005: online)
Education for sustainable development:
is based on the principles and values that underline sustainable development;
deals with the well-being of all three realms of sustainability – environment, society and economy;
promotes life-long learning; is locally relevant and culturally appropriate; is based on local needs, perceptions and conditions, but acknowledges
that fulfilling local needs often has international effects and consequences;
engages formal, non-formal and informal education; accommodates the evolving nature of the concept of sustainability; addresses content, taking into account context, global issues and local
priorities; builds civil capacity for community-based decision making, social
tolerance, environmental stewardship, adaptable workforce and quality of life;
is interdisciplinary. No one discipline can claim ESD for its own, but all disciplines can contribute to ESD;
uses a variety of pedagogical techniques that promote participatory learning and higher-order thinking skills.
In the International Expert Review of ESD in 2011 for UNESCO (Tilbury, 2011) there
was also an emphasis on processes of learning rather that subject content. It was
noted that while ESD is often interpreted in terms of gaining knowledge, values and
theoretical or conceptual understanding, it also refers to certain key processes which
include:
processes of collaboration and dialogue (including multi-stakeholder and intercultural dialogue);
processes which engage the ‘whole system’;
processes which innovate curriculum as well as teaching and learning experiences; and,
processes of active and participatory learning.
The learning involved would include:
learning to ask critical questions;
learning to clarify one’s own values;
57
learning to envision more positive and sustainable futures;
learning to think systemically;
learning to respond through applied learning; and,
learning to explore the dialectic between tradition and innovation.
The Review noted that ‘[t]ransformative views of pedagogy have informed adjectival
educational movements such as peace education; health education; global
education; development education; and environmental education’ (Tilbury,
2011:online).
European policy too has focused on ESD. The UNECE Strategy (2005: online) aims
to encourage integration of ESD in all forms and levels of education systems. The
emphasis of the ESD was on inclusion of:
key sustainable development issues into teaching and learning, such as poverty alleviation, citizenship, peace, ethics, responsibility in local and global contexts, democracy and governance, justice, security, human rights, health, gender equity, cultural diversity, rural and urban development, economy, production and consumption patterns, corporate responsibility, environmental protection, natural resource management and biological and landscape diversity.
It also requires participatory teaching and learning methods that motivate and empower learners to change their behaviour and take action for sustainable development. ESD consequently promotes competencies like critical thinking, imagining future scenarios and making decisions in a collaborative way.
While ‘reformist’, the circulating D/discourse of sustainable development have
themselves been criticised as part of a development hegemony, still emphasising
economic growth, in which notions of sustainability – economic, social and
environmental – were seen as one muted part of a polyphony of challenges to
globalised development discourse and associated social and environmental
inequalities that were considered as antithetical to individual wellbeing and human
survival. The D/discourse and policy prescriptions related to ESD resonate an
58
instrumental view of education (Cochrane and Williams, 2010), as do ‘critical’ and
postmodern [sustainable] educational thinkers (Orr, 1992; Huckle and Sterling, 1996,
Sterling, 2001, 2005; Hicks,2004), although the extent to and means by which this
can be achieved, the instrumental and intrinsic emphasis and the desired outcomes
this will explicitly or more likely implicitly influence is where the contest lies as noted
by Jacobs (1999).
Sylvestre et al (2013:1358), through empirical research stress the need for caution
with regards to international policy D/iscourses of ESD however. Using critical
discourse analysis of International ESD declarations ‘From Talloires to Turin’
[covering the time between 1990 and 1999], the authors suggest such texts can be
envisaged as carrying guiding principles, philosophies and tenets, representing
socio-political constructions of sustainability, the university and current socio-
ecological crises. These employ particular structural, thematic, rhetorical and
metaphoric elements, which can lead to a ‘gambit of possible responses’
environmentally and educationally. The authors through their research highlighted
problematic constructions and reproductions of both the University and Sustainability
in International Declarations, which while speaking a ‘strong socially progressive
politic’ at the same time exhibited an increase in neoliberal, free market discourses
which the authors saw as uncomfortable bedfellows. They were also critical of the
omission of any mention of culpability on the part of Higher Education in the creation
of economic, social and environmental issues which for the authors meant that any
‘new innovations may fall into old traps’ (Sylvestre et al, 2013: 1362).
UK government politics and policy developed national D/discourses of ESD, in which
this empirical research sat, were also pertinent both to my hope for change, and in
59
their particular discursive framings. In 1998, the UK Government [New Labour]
established the Sustainable Development Education Panel, (SDEP) which defined
ESD as encompassing seven key concepts:
Diversity: Respecting and valuing both human diversity - cultural, social and economic - and biodiversity.
Quality of life: Acknowledging that global equity and justice are essential elements of sustainability and that basic needs must be met universally.
Interdependence: Understanding how people, the environment and the economy are inextricably linked at all levels, from the local to the global.
Citizenship - rights and responsibilities: Recognising the importance of taking individual responsibility to ensure the world is a better place for yourself and others.
Needs and rights of future generations: Understanding our own basic needs and the implications for the needs of future generations of actions taken today.
Sustainable change: Understanding that resources are finite and that this has implications for people's lifestyles, and for commerce and industry.
Uncertainty and precaution: Acknowledging that there is a range of possible approaches to sustainability and that situations are constantly changing, indicating a need for flexibility and lifelong learning. (www.defra.gov.uk:online)
Further policies ensued. ‘Learning to Last: The Government’s Sustainable
Development Education Strategy for England’ (2003), and ‘Securing the Future:
Delivering the UK Sustainable Development Strategy’ (2005) presented a view of
education as playing a crucial role in promoting economic prosperity, social equality
and environmental protection, as essential for continued social development and
human flourishing. In my own teaching context, HEFCE's Sustainable Development
Strategy (2005) noted encouragement of the sector to ‘develop curricula, pedagogy
and extra-curricular activities that enable students to develop the values, skills and
knowledge to contribute to sustainable development’ (HEFCE 2005: 8; Sterling,
2010). It specified this further by articulating four areas in which HE institutions could
contribute to sustainable development. These related to our:
60
Role as educators
Generation and transfer of knowledge
Leadership of, and influence upon, local, national and international networks
Business strategy and operations
The call to ESD has had an effect and there are growing international movements of
sustainable universities (Corcoran & Wals, 2004). For Wals and Blewitt (2010),
however, while commitments to SD have been ambitious and increasingly numerous,
there has been an equally striking gap between rhetoric and reality, and for Blewitt:
[a]lthough declarations of principles are important signposts, the everyday reality of educational administration, management, funding, career development, teaching and learning …offer more than a challenge to champions of EfS within the university sector (Blewitt, 2004:5; Sylvestre et al, 2013).
A report for the Higher Education Academy in 2005 on curriculum development in
HE linked to ESD focused on the 24 Subject Centres within the HEA. Their research
suggested that tutors felt curriculum change needed to join up with broader
organisational changes to avoid accusations of hypocrisy (Dawe et al 2005: 23).
They also emphasized the recognition by tutors that students were increasingly
interested in and motivated by ESD, and the need for tutors to lead by example. The
authors noted three prevailing orientations in the teaching of Sustainable
Development at University level:
‘Educators as role models and learners’ where there is an emphasis on how the ‘tutor can offer a credible and authoritative perspective on the realities of putting sustainability principles into practice.’
‘Experiential learning by reconnecting to real-life situations’ which ‘focuses on real and practical life issues and actual experiences as learning situations.’
‘Holistic thinking.’ ‘This approach encompasses a more open-ended exploration of interdependency/trans-disciplinary connections between subjects as well as including approaches to developing and honing critical thinking.’ (Dawe et al, 2005:4-5)
61
Another study for the Higher Education Academy (Cade, 2008) explored the links
between sustainability and graduate employability in relation to higher education
teaching and learning. Using a mixed method approach the author found that social
and environmental ethics and competencies were seen as important by both
prospective students and future employers. Changes in the job market connected to
SD and Corporate Social Responsibility, media coverage, and students desire to
work for ethical employers were, in part, driving this agenda.
ESD and HE Curriculum D/discourses
ESD as it has emerged since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit has been discursively
created involving an ongoing synthesis of environmental and development
educations (Wals, 2012; Sterling, 2010). UNESCO, as noted, has linked this to
notions of citizenship education and political literacy, drawing from its earlier and
ongoing emphasis on rights, responsibilities and participatory development, although
aligned if not allied to more individualised neo-liberal discourses of education and
development, and learners and teachers. UNESCO (1997, paragraphs 67 and 68)
suggest the implications for curricula:
a curriculum reoriented towards sustainability would place the notion of citizenship among its primary objectives. This would require a revision of many existing curricula and the development of objectives and content themes, and teaching, learning and assessment processes that emphasize moral virtues, ethical motivation and ability to work with others to help build a sustainable future. Viewing education for sustainability as a contribution to a politically literate society is central to the reformulation of education and calls for a "new generation" of theorizing and practice in education and a rethinking of many familiar approaches, including within environmental education.
However, in mirroring wider if loose structures, contradictions and contestations
(Wetherell, 2001a; Carneiro, 2011) these models of curriculum are set within an HE
context rooted in modernity and neoliberalism (Giroux, 2004; Apple, 2013). It is
62
suggested that dominant political and educational curriculum models are linked to
technical instrumentalism, rationality, and neo-conservative traditionalism (Young,
2008; Cortese, 2003; Karol and Gale, 2004; Tregidga et al, 2011), and resultant
curricula have been seen as problematic in this light, individually, socially and
environmentally . The dominant hegemonic curriculum model in modern universities
is described as ‘technical’ (Kelly, 1989), ‘vocational/neoclassical’ (Kemmis et al,
1983; Fien, 1993), ‘functionalist’ (Askew and Carnell, 1998), and ‘global competitive’
(Selby, 1999, 2005). This form of curriculum emerged in promotion of the scientific
and technological knowledge as an instrument of modernization (Kelly, 1989). Focus
on curriculum development followed Tyler (1949) featuring objective, linear, technical
rational discourses, in which subject specialists would design and specify curriculum
content and pedagogies linked to psychological principles aimed at passive students,
through production line processes, who could be moulded through outcomes-based
approaches. Rather than agents, this curriculum discourse tended to view students
as ‘malleable objects’ (Kelly, 1989: 62; McKernan, 2008). Knowledge was viewed in
similar terms, favouring scientific and technical knowledge which for Huckle (1999: 4)
makes sustainability ‘mere fashion or slogan’ that traps us in an industrial mindset.
Cortese (2003: 18) suggests that dominant curriculum models have failed to facilitate
critical questioning or our relationships with nature. As such the author suggests we
maintain the illusions that:
• Humans are the dominant species and separate from the rest of nature.
• Resources are free and inexhaustible.
• Earth's ecosystems can assimilate all human impacts.
• Technology will solve most of society’s problems.
• All human needs and wants can be met through material means.
63
• Individual success is independent of the health and well-being of communities, cultures, and the life support system (Cortese, 2003: 18).
Academic-rational models can tend to support this hegemonic Discourse (McKernan,
2008) through transmissive traditional pedagogies inherent in technical and
disciplinary curricula (Thomas, 2005; Bracher, 2006), where teachers initiate their
students into particular D/discourses that can colonise their thinking. Bracher
stresses the potentially harmful nature of transference found in traditional and
professional pedagogies, where the teacher overtly celebrates particular disciplinary
Discourses or master signifiers , identities, ideals or values – such as sustainability -
which can lead to alienation of students (Bracher, 2006: 85-86). Through this, it is
suggested, we can easily lose critical sight of its potential value beyond its
educational and social currency of such Discourses, for addressing social and
environmental problems.
Academic curriculum models can also link to liberal progressive (Carr, 1998)
D/discourses and to perhaps more reformist client-centred or learner-centred models
(Kemmis et al, 1983; Fien, 1993; Askew and Carnell, 1998; Jickling, 2003; Selby,
2005; Scott and Gough, 2007;). Here education is articulated as both personal and
intrinsically valuable rather than a ‘means to an end’ linked to ‘rational autonomy and
individual freedom’ (Carr, 1998:327; McKernan, 2008) and hence certain conceptions
of agency (Heilbroner, 1985; Emirbayer and Mische, 1998; Biesta and Tedder,
2006). Through this lens Jickling (2005:93), drawing on Peters (1973), highlights the
need to challenge any discipline or master signifier, such as sustainability, even if it
purports to be ‘radical’:
How can we ensure that educational programs provide a sufficient breadth of alternatives for them to ponder and use to construct
64
meaning in the face of important decisions, to ensure that they are adequately prepared to play an active role in democratic processes?
Calls for teacher neutrality (Scott and Gough, 2007) are evident and often this is an
emphasis of environmental education (Stables and Scott, 2002; Jickling, 1994; Orr,
1992). Jickling (2005: 94) goes on, ‘[h]ow do we enable our students to push beyond
the bounds of our own best thinking or the conventional wisdom of the day? How do
we ensure that they can be exposed to more alternatives?’ Huckle (2008) suggests,
however, that such liberal approaches are likely to fail by omission, where a focus on
the learner is both time-consuming, and agency can be thwarted through the sense
of isolation it can provoke. Stressing instrumental economic, social and
environmental purposes for HE noted earlier does not necessarily preclude notions
of the intrinsic value of education (Sen, 2009; Walker, 2012). Sen’s emphasis on
capabilities in education combines these dimensions and purpose subsuming notions
of human capital to those of wellbeing that focus on modern ideas of democracy,
freedom and agency, also echoed by Apple (2013).
Socially critical curriculum discourses (Kemmis et al, 1983; Fien, 1993; Askew and
Carnell, 1998; Carr and Kemmis, 1985; Huckle, 2008, Parker and Wade, 2008) often
articulate an approach in terms of social justice and/or education for sustainability,
stressing the importance of ideological critique through historical and social analysis
of knowledge and power, and reappraising education and self in light of critical
theories. For Sterling:
Education is both part of the problem and the solution. … Education is
proclaimed at a high level as the key to a more sustainable society,
and yet it daily plays a part in reproducing an unsustainable society. If
it is to fulfil its potential as an agent of change towards a more
sustainable society, sufficient attention must be given to education as
the subject of change itself. A society faced with a radical imperative
65
to achieve a socially, economically and ecologically sustainable basis
within a historically short time needs to reappraise most aspects of its
organisation; education – as the main means of social reproduction –
has to be at the centre of this task, both as subject and agent.
(Sterling, 1996: 18)
Eco-socialist curriculum discourses are overtly political, stressing the importance of
values in social change. Often claims of or links to transformative learning are made
(Fien, 1993; Huckle, 2008; Sterling, 2010-11). In its counter-hegemonic tendencies,
however, it can be seen as potentially ‘dangerous’, puritanical and exclusive
(Bowers, 1993, 1995; Jickling, 1992; Giroux, 2004). Bracher suggests that in this
approach teachers might aim to gain recognition for and expose the identity bearing
master signifiers responsible for their own alienation. While this can strengthen
individual sense of identity and agency as advocate of social justice or sustainability
and shape a collective sense of solidarity, it can also be disempowering, supporting
socially destructive identity politics and fundamentalism (Bracher, 2006: 98;
Blühdorn, 2002). This can also, through processes of othering within such
discourses, alienate students and colleagues generating institutional violence
through potential humiliation and punishment, and hegemonic cultural violence
through the promotion of certain qualities and ideals.
Postmodern curriculum discourses (Orr, 1992; Stables and Scott, 2001; Bonnett,
2004; Kagawa and Selby, 2010) in line with postmodernism more generally, question
modern reason and rationality, aiming in the face of complexity, diversity and change
to ‘renew humanity’s spiritual, affective and intuitive capabilities’ (Blewitt, 2004: 5). In
this there is an emphasis on nature, organicism and holism rather than suggestions
of mechanism, instrumentalism and dualism (Gray-Donald and Selby, 2008).
‘Postmodern education must have a different agenda, one designed to heal, connect,
66
liberate, empower, create and celebrate.’ (Orr,1992:x) Often this curriculum
discourse/model generates more uncertainties and concerns than answers
prompting for Slattery (2013) ‘a deep ecology’ of education’ in an ongoing process of
clarification and exploration. For Boboc (2012:148):
Discourse (i.e., negotiation) and praxis are the two main components of any postmodern approach to teaching and learning. Due to the diverse student and teacher body, differences have to be learned and celebrated as the foundation of society. Instructors and learners educate themselves while interacting formally in the school setting. This “trial and error” approach ensures the constant reshaping of the content to be learned as well as the context in which learning occurs. Students become aware of their individual role in bringing about the social change that supports the further development of society.
Marrying critical and postmodern curriculum models, notions of radical pedagogy
(Giroux, 2004a, 2004b, Bracher, 2006) emphasise similar goals if different
articulations of purpose, process and potential and uncertain outcomes.
Bracher (2006) suggests that for radical pedagogues, perhaps no different to
expressions of purpose in other traditions, the two fundamental aims of education are
to benefit students in terms of empowerment and fulfilment, and in this enabling them
to benefit society as a whole. He suggests that this involves a ‘resistance’ or critical
social [as environmental] pedagogy and ‘Socratic method’. Teachers, for Bracher,
aim to empower students to develop a reflexive ability to focus on their own ‘identity
components’, the effects of these for self and others, and the opportunities and
issues of change they might choose to dance with. This involves a curriculum
process or pedagogy in which:
students would study their own ethnicities, histories, and gain some sense of those complex and diverse cultural locations that have provided them with a sense of voice, place, and identity. In this way, students could be made more attentive to the struggles that inform their own identities (Giroux, 1994:51 cited in Bracher, 2006:104).
67
Apple (2013: 151) emphasizes the necessity of this as a form of ‘conviction politics’,
which he calls ‘radical democratic egalitarianism’. This, for the author, is ‘necessary
for a flourishing and fulfilling personal and social life’ for me resonating Sen’s (2007)
notion of capabilities, and more humanistic, liberal-reformist curriculum D/discourses
emphasized in DESD. The lack of clarity of boundaries between and within
curriculum models were increasingly noted in my readings and reflexive choices
sprang to mind regarding my own discursive positionings.
I, as might be expected given my narrative in Chapter 1, felt I aligned at the
critical/radical/postmodern end of this curriculum spectrum in terms of personal
preference. Casting my mind to experience I sensed this may not be clearly
articulated or indeed enacted, a source of initial concern alongside more
fundamentalist notions of my own D/discourses of sustainability in relation to
curriculum change. I was surprisingly interested rather than concerned about
potential findings, which from my research standpoints could consider the potential of
such constructive and reconstructive processes. This loosened the hold of the real as
I danced, and ontological and epistemological uncertainties reinforced a sense of
personal autonomy and agency rather than merely creating a sense of being
dragged under by the shifting sands or swampy lowlands of practice. Empirical
research may not access any truth but it was even in formulating my context,
approach and questions, generating a sense of enhanced knowledge of the topic and
myself, I needed now to further attend to notions of context.
While policy internationalism (King, 2011) may show increasing convergence in
D/discourses of, and prescriptions for what are multiple purposes, roles and functions
for the universities of the twenty first century, this has been put into practice at a local
level. At one and the same time, curriculum developers in HE need to meet goals
68
linked to the economic success of all involved, generation of ‘useful’ knowledge,
production of skilled and agentic students, social inclusion and sustainable
development (Cochrane and Williams, 2010; King, 2011; Sterling, 2004; Blewitt,
2004). However, homogeneity is less evident in local contexts, with diversity
between and within institutions, and hence interpretations and practices are equally
diverse. My own institution, for example is situated in a spatially, temporally and
culturally specific context, it is small, has a long history of social purpose and has
only recently become a university.
Institutional Culture and D/discourse
Kemmis and McTaggart (1992) note that culture comprises the characteristic
substance and forms of language, discourses, activities and practices, social
relations and organisation which constitute the social interactions of the group.
Similarly, Giroux suggests:
Culture is partly defined as a circuit of power, ideologies, and values in which diverse images and sounds are produced and circulated, identities are constructed, inhabited, and discarded, agency is manifested in both individualized and social forms, and discourses are created, which make culture itself the object of inquiry and critical analyses. Rather than being viewed as a static force, the substance of culture and everyday life—knowledge, goods, social practices, and contexts—repeatedly mutates and is subject to ongoing changes and interpretations (Giroux, 2004a: 59-60).
Giroux speaks convincingly of the cultural influence in education in terms of identity
transformations, enactments of power and the political dynamic of learning in
providing or limiting the ‘acquisition of agency’ and ‘for imagining oppositional social
change’ (ibid.: 60). Culture becomes, according to the author, a site of contestation
and utopian possibility. For Peterson and Spencer (1991:142) while aspects of
culture are shared through ‘deeply embedded patterns of organisational behaviour
and the shared values, assumptions, beliefs, or ideologies that members have about
69
their organisation or its work’, notions of homogeneity and concensus are
challenged, and citing Bergquist (1992: ibid.), the authors note at least four co-
existing institutional cultures:
Collegial culture arises primarily from the disciplines. Managerial culture focuses on the goals and purposes of the
institution Developmental culture is focused on the personal and professional
growth Negotiating culture values the establishment of equitable and
egalitarian policies and procedures
In academic/disciplinary terms HE ‘culture’ has been seen to be riven with what
Becher and Trowler (2001) and Macfarlane (2004) call ‘rival tribes’. We work in a
context, according to the authors, where educators tend to adopt a disciplinary rather
than vocational identity that has been further impacted, in processes of globalisation,
by marketization and massification of HE, the changing demographic of students and
staff, and the inclusion of new disciplines, domains of knowledge and hence
D/discourses (Becher and Trowler, 2001:2). This has been heightened in post-
industrial times by processes and experiences of change, information overload,
competitiveness, uncertainty, organisational decline, fragmentation and loss of
autonomy, a sharper more management oriented division of labour, and multiple
demands or roles relating to teaching, research and publishing (Macfarlane, 2004:9;
Becher and Trowler, 2001; Sousa, 2011). Macfarlane (2011) extends this
discussion, noting that our practices have become more divided into ‘para-
professional roles’ and subjected to different measures of accountability resulting in a
loss of automony. For Blewitt we as individuals face these pressures as we ‘directly
experience the risks, uncertainties and pressures of working and living within a
globalized, weightless knowledge economy’ (Blewitt, 2004: 11).
70
Mumby & Clair (1997:181; Zelle, 2009) suggest that ‘organizations exist only in so far
as their members create them through D/discourse. This is not to claim, the authors
note, that organizations are ‘nothing but’ D/discourse, but rather that D/discourse is
the principal means by which organization members create a coherent social reality
that frames their sense of who they are’. They are also the site of contestation, and
Luke (2002:3; Wetherell, 2000a) notes that we now engage in ‘semiotic economies,
where language, text and discourse become the principal modes of social relations,
civic and political life, economic behaviour and activity’.
This struggle centres in part on D/discourses of curriculum (Young, 1998; Connelly
and Xu, 2007; Barnett and Coate, 2005; Coate, 2009) in the context of
[un]sustainability, risk, and uncertainty. (WCED, 1987; Orr, 1994; Sterling, 2001).
Brennan (1991, 1994; Stables and Scott, 2001; Scott and Gough, 2007) highlights
the issues that the disciplinary and bureaucratic nature of higher education poses to
interdisciplinary normative concerns for justice and sustainability in curriculum
development and practice. An issue for Brennan (1991: 291) that resonated with my
own concern was that the more I tried ‘to do justice to the complexity’ of my subject-
matter, the more defensive I ‘had to become’. Brennan (1994; also Dresner, 2002)
suggests therefore the need for teachers to become ‘bilingual’, moving beyond their
disciplinary boundaries to include and develop a human ecology approach needed in
times of a human/environmental crisis.
Cotton et al (2007) in the UK suggested that subject area of tutoring was not
necessarily a barrier to ESD. Their research based on questionnaires and interviews
in one particular organisation highlighted greater familiarity among tutors with ESD
than sustainability, and that the contested and controversial language of
71
sustainability, which precluded fixity, was expressed as an issue. Subsequent
research in the same institution (Jones et al, 2010) highlighted tutors resistance to
implementation to ESD in terms of loss of academic freedom, disciplinary
inappropriateness and in terms of suggested indoctrination, linked to the values
orientation implied or assumed in discourses of ESD/SE or our unfamiliarity with
them. Others noted by Cotton et al (2007:590) saw potential opportunities in the
contested nature and pedagogic approaches suggested by ESD/SE. With regard to
pedagogies, interactive and student-centered approaches were seen as key. More
interestingly perhaps, less than a fifth of respondents (19%) suggested it was
irrelevant to their teaching and only 13% suggested lack of time or institutional
structures to be barriers. The main reason cited for lack of engagement was the
sense that tutors lacked subject expertise (28%).
Ryan (2011) conducted desk-based research looking at curriculum documents of
twenty U.K. universities, and noted that links to size or type of organisation seemed
to have little influence on curriculum, although inter-disciplinary focus seemed more
evident in research-oriented institutions. He found evidence of thematic overlap,
conceptual blending and different priorities at organisational level, with nearly half
focused on SD/ESD, just over a third prioritising global citizenship and ESD, and a
fifth emphasising inter-disciplinarity in teaching and learning. He also noted a
tendency for initiatives to change curriculum content rather than pedagogic
approaches, an interesting potential link to notions of expertise noted by Cotton et al
(2007). There was also increased focus on employability, graduate skills and
capabilities, with some ideals of integration emanating from liberal arts perspectives.
Research into institutional engagement with sustainability continues to highlight the
72
focus on and implicit celebration of diversity, notions of expertise and links to a sense
of the need for professional autonomy and agency.
Beck (1998) contends, however, that there is a contradiction between, or
nominalisation of, the role of institutions in the lives of individual agents which the
author considers to involve ‘organized irresponsibility’, born out of a laissez faire
approach in global policy and manifested through technical rationalist institutional
and legal procedures that link to D/discourses of accountability and performativity.
For Elliott, like Beck, culpability is individualised and collectively denied, maintained
through political D/discourses of ‘industrial fatalism: faith in progress, dependence on
rationality and the rule of expert opinion’ (Elliott, 2002: 297-8; Cohen, 1997; Beck,
1998). Universities, more optimistically, are places ‘where the contradictions of the
knowledge society are most apparent, and as such, the potential exists for
universities to become important agents of the public sphere, initiating social change
rather than just responding to it’ (Delanty, 2003: 81).
Reflexive modernity and agency
Beck’s (1992a: 7) emphasis and optimism for reflexive modernity suggests individual
agency. For Raskin too ‘[t]he shape of the global future rests with the reflexivity of
human consciousness – the capacity to think critically about why we think what we
do – and then to think and act differently’ (Raskin, 2008 cited in Sterling, 2010-11:
19; Caldwell, 2007). Agency for Newman and Dale (2005: 482) ‘is necessary for
citizens to be able to adapt to their sociocultural environment, and more importantly
to respond and transcend tragedy and crisis’. Links have thus been made to notions
of agency and reflexive modernity, where agency becomes both more necessary and
difficult to achieve, bound up as it is in a web of alternative ways of seeing and ‘part
73
of a reflective process connecting personal and social change’ (Giddens, 1991:32;
Beck, 1992; Elliott, 2002).
In Sen’s ‘capability approach’ to development, that sought to challenge emphasis on
dominant human capital approaches to broader emphasis, including in HE curriculum
as discussed below, on notions of flourishing, dignity and agency (Walker, 2012). In
the context of sustainability, Sen emphasises the need to see ourselves and others
as agents of change:
we also have to go beyond the role of human beings specifically as
‘consumers’ or as ‘people with needs’, and consider, more broadly,
their general role as agents of change who can—given the
opportunity—think, assess, evaluate, resolve, inspire, agitate, and,
through these means, reshape the world (Sen, 2013:7).
While well-being for Sen (2007) may be achieved through ‘functionings’ [actions] that
may show concern for others well-being, his notion of agency involves a sense of
commitment to support other individuals regardless, and perhaps at the expense of
one’s own wellbeing. He notes ‘[s]ince people are the ultimate ‘agents’ of change,
much must depend on their inspiration and commitment, and we do require a broad
enough notion of sustainability that can be sufficiently enlivening’ (Sen, 2013:9).
Agency for Sen (2007:275) ‘encompasses the goals that a person has reasons to
adopt, which can inter alia include goals other than the advancement of his or her
own well-being.’ He suggests therefore a need to consider the ‘extent of freedom
(and the real capability to do—or achieve—what one has reason to value)’ (ibid,
2013:11) where a distinction between personal values, and the reason to value
involves wider conceptions of the good and ‘careful assessment of aims, allegiances,
objectives, where to be ‘responsible agents’ involves paying attention to and an
assessment of the ‘state of affairs’ (Alkire, 2008:6; Meadows, 2001). As such agency
74
becomes an assessment of ‘what a person can do in line with his or her conception
of the good’ and the possible (Sen, 1985 cited in Alkire, 2008: 3). Sen (2013: 17)
notes, however, drawing on earlier work (1999) that ‘It has to be borne in mind that
quite often the isolated individual has very little opportunity of going against
established patterns of behaviour and socially accepted norms’. Effective power ‘to
achieve chosen results’ (Alkire, 2008: 4) is social in nature. For Alkire (2008),
drawing on Ryan and Deci (2004), not being able to exert agency can lead to
alienation, openness to coercion, submission and passivity. This resonated with
Beck’s notions earlier and suggested I might consider how we articulate our ability to
exert agency, how we discourse the actions and agency of ourselves and others, and
how this relates to curriculum development in the context of sustainability. For
Ahearn too, agency involves ‘the socioculturally mediated capacity to act’ (2001: 112;
Emirbayer and Mische, 1998; Biesta and Tedder, 2006). It is therefore problematic to
view agency as a synonym for free will or resistance which potentially neglects ‘the
social nature of agency and the pervasive influence of culture on human intentions,
beliefs, and actions’ (Ahearn, 2001:114). It is equally problematic to succumb to
‘romance of resistance’, which, for the author, could neglect that agent’s motivations
‘are always complex and contradictory’ (ibid: 116).
Biesta and Tedder (2006) note that the concept of agency lies at the heart of
education [and hence curriculum], across traditions/ideologies whether liberal,
humanist or critical and emancipatory. Agency’s discursive links to concepts of
freedom, rational autonomy, conscientization and moral autonomy have their home
in ‘modern’ ideas and the authors draw on Kant’s (1784) definition of Enlightenment
as ‘man’s [sic] release from his self-incurred tutelage’ where tutelage represented
‘man’s inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another’
75
(Biesta and Tedder, 2006:4), alluding to agency as connected to contextual and
structural factors noted above. The authors go on to suggest that there is a
difference between normative and empirical interest in agency, with the former
emphasising the need for learning ‘particular things’ to become more agentic, and
the latter recognising that agency is thrust upon us, we have the capacity of agency
through processes of individualisation (Bauman, 2000; Elliott, 2002; Beck, 1992a),
with greater uncertainty, therefore, of what learning is needed. In this I saw potential
to suspend my unquestioning normative focus on sustainability within the research
process.
Emirbayer and Mische (1998: 963; Biesta and Tedder, 2006) suggest agency is a
‘temporally embedded process of social engagement, informed by the past, (in its
habitual aspect), but also oriented toward the future (as a capacity to imagine
alternative possibilities) and toward the present (as a capacity to contextualize past
habits and future projects with the contingencies of the moment), linking this concept
to storylines and narratives, curriculum and sustainability (Harré et al, 1999; Hicks,
2006, 2010, 2012). Again articulations of agentic positioning, potential and ability
was conceptualised as one way to ‘get the beat’ of my own institution (Meadows,
2001; Alkire, 2008).
Moving towards empirical study
Hatzius (1996:5) notes three particular D/discourses of development and
sustainability within contemporary policy and institutions which he calls ‘sustainable
growth’, ‘sustainable development’ and ‘ecological sustainability’. These were useful
in highlighting both the breadth of reach of this D/discourse, and also the diversity
and contested nature of this concept. Sustainable growth is primarily an economic
76
D/discourse emphasised by businesses and most governments, where the goal is
economic efficiency and development is largely viewed in these terms. This
D/discourse is generally optimistic, anthropocentric and research favours positivist
and liberal notions of neutrality, where agency is expressed through market
interactions primarily involving freedom to choose. Sustainable development, for the
author, remains largely optimistic and anthropocentric although involves normative
concerns for social justice, where research therefore involves attention to values,
institutional development and participation. Many criticisms of SD and alternative
discourses of ‘sustainability’ have emerged from academic and non-governmental
organisations (Robinson, 2004; Tilbury and Wortman, 2004; Hicks, 2008), bringing
new languages and discourses of sustainability as individuals and groups within
learning societies attempt to respond to uncertainties and risk (Scott and Gough,
2001:102). Ecological sustainability D/discourses have, for Hatzius, a strong ethical
base that challenge anthropocentrism, are pessimistic and values driven. Education
is seen as key for effecting environmental protection.
In development of ‘the [sub]political nature of socio-environmental debates’, Dryzec
(1997:16, 2005) suggests environmental D/discourses operate across two
dimensions of critique of the conditions of industrialism and the politics of modernity,
in which language becomes important in ‘constructing, interpreting, discussing and
analysing environmental problems, with all kinds of consequences in practice’
(Dryzec, 2005: 9-10). For the author SD is broader than environmentalism, involving
different groups including market liberals, institutionalists, bioenvironmentalists and
social greens who go about generating different discourses along binary dimensions
(ibid: 14). The author notes these binaries position D/discourse in both their
77
environmental critique of modernity and their sense of individual and/or collective
agency.
The first binary, between ‘reformist’ and ‘radical’ positions, relates the extent to which
alternatives wish to move away from these conditions. The second binary, between
prosaic and imaginative positions, suggests the extent to which political-economic
conditions are accepted as given or open to transformation. When combined, these
dimensions produce four distinct discursive approaches according to Dryzec (1997,
2005). The ‘problem solving’ D/discourse [prosaic and reformist] suggests
acceptance of the way things are and seeks largely to manage emergent issues.
‘Limits and survival’ D/discourses [prosaic and radical] take a pessimistic stance that
may prompt a critique, but with limited potential for change articulated.
‘Sustainability’ [imaginative and reformist] is muted in critique of industrialism
although articulates potential for change, while ‘green radicalism’ [imaginative and
radical] suggests, as the name might imply, both the need and potential for
transformation. Tregidga et al (2011) suggest, however, that we should not rely too
heavily on ‘assessing conceptualisations of sustainable development against the
weak/strong continuum’ as it can limit exploration of alternative constructions, or fail
to explore ‘why some constructions are weak while others strong’ (Tregidga et al,
2011:10).
Hajer (1995: 44) also discusses the political nature of environmental D/discourse and
for him discourse analysis:
primarily aims to understand why a particular understanding of the environmental problem at some point gains dominance and is seen as authoritative, while other understandings are discredited’ involving processes of reproduction and transformation in particular ‘social practices’ through which meaning is given to reality rather than representative of it. This does not however assume coherence of or in single environmental D/discourses, and this plurality can be a site for
78
social action which ‘originates in human agency of clever, creative human beings but in a context of social structures of various sorts that both enable and constrain their agency. (Hajer, 1995: 58)
D/discourse, for Hajer is ‘a specific ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categorizations
that are produced, reproduced, and transformed in a particular set of practices and
through which meaning is given to physical and social realities’ (Hajer, 1995: 44)
involving the complex mix of cultural norms, disciplines and rituals which govern
discursive formations. Hajer notes that environmental conflicts over interpretation of
ecological problems take place in the realm of D/discourse where, drawing on
Foucault, he suggests a ‘discursive order’ that regulates both the discourse itself and
‘discoursing subjects’ (ibid: 48; Alvesson and Kärreman, 2001; Bingham, 2010).
This regulatory function in terms of the parameters, participants and rules of
interaction within discourse become dialogically involved in generating practices,
discursive formulation and ascription of subject positions that can both limit and
enable individual actors. Argumentative D/discourse analysis (Hajer, 1995)
highlights notions of discursive agency linked to storylines that construct subject
positions and build discourse coalitions. His view is that language has ‘the capacity
to make politics, to create signs and symbols that can shift power balances and that
can impact on institutions and policy-making’ (Hajer 2006: 66).
Beck (1998, 2008) highlights the discursive melding of academic and wider cultural
discourses through processes of globalisation noted above which continue to draw
on the assumptions, language and metaphors of modernity and thus maintain ‘an
industrial culture and consciousness’ that is potentially problematic for both new
knowledge and sustainability (Gruenewald, 2004:86; Bowers, 1991; Beck, 1998,
2008; Elliott, 2002; Blühdorn, 2002). Interpretive repertoires highlight these
79
discursive links which involve notions of concensus where a repertoire can be seen
as so established and familiar [thus hegemonic] ‘that only a fragment of the
argumentative chain needs to be formulated in talk to form an adequate basis for
participants to jointly recognize the version of the world that is developing’ (Reynolds
and Wetherell, 2003: 496). For Gramsci (1971:323) this represents a ‘determined
notion of concepts’, in our ‘common sense’, ‘good sense’ and ‘popular religion’ that
help weave together ‘the entire system of beliefs, superstitions, opinions, ways of
seeing things and of acting, which are collectively bundled together under the name
of ‘folklore’. Wetherell too speaks of exposure to ‘popular psychology’ and ‘collective
memory’ (Wetherell, 2001a:25), as something that shapes the discursive spaces in
which we act. Environmental or post ecological interpretative repertoires (Kellert,
1993; Zeyer and Roth, 2011), were found to offer conceptual and heuristic models for
analysis of D/discourse, particularly discourses offered by individual respondents in
my inquiry. Hökkä et al (2010) offered accommodatory and reformist curriculum
repertoires that enabled analysis of the same data in relation to curriculum and
agency.
Potter and Wetherell (1987:149) define interpretative repertoires as ‘recurrently used
systems of terms used for characterizing and evaluating actions, events and other
phenomena.’ For the authors these often dance around specific metaphors and
‘figures of speech’. Billig (1991) in his work on linking ideology and opinion,
suggests the importance of a ‘rhetorical psychology’ approach to D/discourse and
D/discourse analysis that focus on the strategic and self-determining nature of
argument and persuasion. From this view, speaking undertakes both the strategic
business of ideological position taking, and elements of self-representation that can
be offered as opinion. In this and drawing on Potter and Wetherell (1988), he
80
suggests that ‘people use complex and frequently contradictory patterns of talk’
(Billig, 1991:15), where different interpretative repertoires come into play in order to
accomplish different functions, both ideological and subjective. This echoes, for
Billig, Gramsci’s (1971) conceptualisation of common sense as made up of
‘competing maxims’ where hegemony does not necessarily prevent argument but
provides ‘resources for criticism’ (Billig, 1991:22). However, while we may express
opinions, ‘[o]ur beliefs and our attitudes do not merely occur in our heads, but they
too belong to the wider social contexts of controversy’ (Billig, 1991:43). While these
might indicate shared ways of speaking, I also felt it important to consider the unique,
diverse ways of speaking, by discoursing subjects as creative agents (Hajer, 1995;
Ahearn, 2001).
Harré, Brockmeier, and Mühlhäusler (1999:4) focus on cultural systems of
D/discourse as ‘Greenspeak’ paying attention to the ‘linguistic resources deployed in
and fashioned by a particular conversational moment’. The authors draw attention to
two aspects of D/discourse as particularly relevant, the first is the temporal
teleological aspect, while the second focuses on the spatial aspect. As noted earlier,
these changes are said to be progressed through the globalization of technology and
the increased circulation of discourse genres. The authors see language as the
medium in and by which concepts are created, negotiated and maintained, but note
that in times of rapid change, these linguistic devices tend to ‘lag behind’ other
changes, more problematic given the temporal concerns of environmentalism and
sustainability, but also suggestive that actions will speak louder than words perhaps.
For Harré et al (1999: 4) Greenspeak involves ‘the symbolic means by which the
issues of environmentalism are constructed, represented and negotiated, bringing
together the linguistic, psychological, social and philosophical dimensions that can
81
form a framework by which we come to terms with ‘nature and the conditions of our
existence (Harré et al, 1999: 69). These forms of expression are interwoven into a
cultural fabric that ‘embeds the individual within socially shared contexts of
meanings’, again supportive of my framework for study. The author’s emphasis on
narratives was particularly pertinent to this research, conceptualised by the authors
as allegories, concrete stories that also convey abstract meanings and complex
temporal transformations, and as such become ‘teleologies of hope and despair’
(Harré et al, 1999: 9). They suggest there are strong arguments for understanding
our repertoires of narrative forms as a type of discourse, through which authors take
up positions through the use of rhetorical devices rather than as semantic essences.
Alongside environmental ‘positions’, temporal positioning sits at the heart of
sustainability, and in discourse writers or speakers can also articulate ‘moral
assessments and expressions of time mingled with aesthetic values’ (Harré et al,
1997: 9) which can reveal meanings within particular cultural-historical contexts.
McKeown and Hopkins (2003:125) share this notion of D/discourse, and suggest that
it is at the cultural or organisational level of analysis that interpretation and
implementation of international agreements ‘develop a local interpretation and a fuller
meaning’ similar to Ahearn (2001) and Alkire (2008) noted above.
D/discourses of SD and HE’s role in its promotion have been subject to ongoing
rearticulation. Tregidga et al (2011:1) focused on SD as a ‘floating signifier’ and
discussed the value of Laclau and Mouffe’s (1985) discourse theory in provision of a
useful framework for ‘recognising the complex nature of sustainable development’
and in provision of a useful way of ‘conceptualising counter-hegemonies and thus
the possibilities of and for resistance and debate’, and potential change. The
authors, from their discourse analysis of corporate reports over a twelve year period,
82
found that since the Brundtland Report (WCED,1987), SD had been filled with
‘economic-focused content’. Yet, ‘the meaning’ was open to a multiplicity of
meanings, ‘highlighting the potentialities of such a conception’. SD for the authors
was seen as important in countering the negative impacts of ‘corporate domination’
(Dryzec, 1998; Hajer, 1995), and in light of this concepts role in diminishing the force
of the environmental movement. The construction of D/discourse and its meaning for
the authors is context dependent, and the local, or rather glocalised (Robertson,
1994, 2012) and where discursive responses are seen to be important sites of
hegemonic resistance.
My review of literature and a good deal of reflection sought to challenge my own
taken for granted allegiance to sustainability, and here empirical research offered a
particularly exciting opportunity to engage more rigorously and reflexively with my
topic and agency. In this, the emphasis was on a decentred approach and
objectifying techniques that could distance myself from inquiry experientially and
politically and poststructural approaches to D/discourse analysis offered particularly
useful ways of doing this (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985; Jørgensen and Phillips, 2002;
Caldwell, 2007; Peschl, 2007).
Personal position in research
As noted in the introduction my original focus was sustainability and hopes for
curriculum change that had not been taken up by colleagues or more broadly within
my institution. Initially I framed this position as one of angst and fundamentalism
(Blühdorn, 2002). In this I seemed to align my thesis with what Wallace and Poulson
(2004:24) describe as ‘knowledge for critical evaluation’ in its attempts to develop
theoretical and research knowledge from an explicitly negative standpoint towards
83
practice and policy and to argue why it should be rejected….advocating improvement
according to an alternative ideology’. Critical inquiry seemed to offer potential keys
to the educational change I felt and feel are needed, however, I was uncomfortable in
adopting this particular perspective in my own practice context. Was I, in this
approach, claiming some sort of ideologically or educationally superior position in my
research? And more relationally, was I, or would I be perceived to be suggesting
that colleagues were unaware of curriculum alternatives, or worse still conscious
agents of oppressive and unsustainable practices? I could only take heart in the
literature, and personal reflections and justifications that this research was
advocating for an oppressed and marginalised nature [including human], that current
educational institutions including my own are part of the problem, and that we as
educators do engage in the same critical thinking and inquiry that we encourage in
our students, although not necessarily through this particular lens.
As such my writing would seem to dance with critical and postmodern curriculum
D/discourses cited above. However, criticisms of my position raised in this review of
literature, alongside personal experience of practice raised questions that warranted
empirical study rather than normative evaluation. I was looking for clarification rather
than challenge (Charmaz, 2006:199), but still felt that the empirical and relational
nature of research in my own practice context presented particular issues.
These considerations prompted the need for further reading and reflection on the
political and ethical dimensions of the research, in terms of both intent and content. I
moved to a research approach more in tune with Wallace and Poulson’s (2004)
‘Reflexive Action’, with a focus on developing self-critical research knowledge in
order to improve practice according to an alternative ideology. In this process I
needed a shift of mind from ‘akrasia’ to ‘metanoia’, the result of an attentive mind
84
where my own ‘reality’ was considered, challenged and might be changed (Clarke,
2012:29).
A strength of Laclau and Mouffe’s (1985) discourse theory for Tregidga et al (2011),
also noted earlier (Jørgensen and Phillips, 2002; Borne, 2013), is that it helps
progress research into SD through its distinction between existence vs being, the
ontic and the ontological, overcoming realist critiques. Also, with an emphasis on
democracy and pluralism, their theory challenges personal bias in research. Their
recognition of fixity [hegemony] but also multiplicity and contestability, where
articulation is defined as ‘any practice establishing relations among elements such
that their identity is modified as a result’ (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985: 105).
The research questions posed, and the theoretical frameworks that have been
examined within this work so far have tended to indicate my personal preferences
and narratives, as did the research techniques initially considered. Gough and Reid
(2000) in their discussion of environmental education research highlight how our
views of education, professionalism and teaching are influential on our actions as
educational researchers. They cite Bennett (1997), who highlights certain
professional characteristics that we have drawn on within the teaching ‘profession’ to
exemplify and justify our roles, rights and responsibilities as teachers and within
research. These involve characteristics of ‘diagnosis, evaluation, implementation
and standard setting’ (Gough and Reid, 2000: 48). For the authors, the way we
approach these characteristics in our research will be influenced by how we see our
work. They particularly link this to our engagement, or lack of it, with research
‘guidelines’ noting that we may see our work and research as ‘science-based
profession, a profession based to a greater or lesser extent in something other than
science, or as something other than a profession’. This continuum, they suggest,
85
has implications for the role of theory in research and the extent to which we follow
existing canons. However, objectivity and reflexivity were key in this study in
moving away from my own ‘habits of mind’ towards a more open approach, and in
consideration of academic standards associated with doctoral study discussed
further in Chapter 3. I also had to take into account my own position and bias, in part
articulated in Chapter 1.
I cannot deny that I had hoped at the outset, and perhaps still do, to ‘discover
discourses which encode worldviews that inspire people into action for sustainability’
(Stibbe, 2009: 4) although ‘different discourses motivate different audiences’. Cutting
(2002) in his discussion of pragmatics and D/discourse suggests this involves not a
different focus of study, but an emphasis on relevance rather than coherence of the
research. Sustainability, like justice and health are emerging qualities arising from
sets of relations in a system (Sterling, 2004:55). As a concept, sustainability can
offer a more fertile ground for educational innovation (Rauch, 2004) or model site of
contest and renegotiation (Soetaert and Mottart, 2001: 55) with huge heuristic
capacity to exchange views and ideas (Selby, 2008:65), and through which for Wals
and Bawden (2005:38) ‘may generate fruitful working hypotheses for the concrete
formulation of curriculum, study programmes, subject matter content and didactical
arrangements’.
As Sylvestre et al (2013: 1357) note, however, ‘[t]hough institutional transformation
for sustainability is a laudable goal, the contested and protean nature of the concept
of sustainability presents a significant challenge when using it as an organizing
principle for change’. Wals too warned against this stance:
Talking about sustainability is quite different from making it the end, or aim, of education, or using it as the preeminent organizing concept.
86
Unfortunately, the mantra of sustainability has conditioned many to believe that this term carries unconditional or positive values. Yet environmental issues are not fundamentally or exclusively about sustainability. Rather, they are issues about cultural identities, social and environmental equity, respect, society-nature relationships and tensions between intrinsic and instrumental values. Ameliorating issues of sustainability involves addressing ethical questions, for instance, regarding the injustice in sharing the use of the world’s resources. We do not know the answers to these questions and should not pretend that we do, but we do know that they cannot be found without also looking at issues of development, justice, peace and conflict, human rights and dignity, and intrinsic value of other species, and indeed, whole ecosystems (Wals, 2002: 223).
Sustainability for Grove-White (1994 cited in McNaghten and Urry, 1998:95) provides
a new space for political explorations rather than establishing unambiguous call for
action based on fresh values, and this was important in moving this thesis from
normative to empirical study. Ongoing self-questioning through the lenses of risk
and reflexive modernity (Beck, 1992, 1994; Lash, 1994; Elliott, 2001) can help to
‘penetrate the masks and veils of media spin, political rhetoric and instrumental
rationality’ (Blewitt, 2004: 6), but in this we create new masks (Jørgensen and
Phillips, 2002) and constructions that themselves warrant investigation. Elliott
suggests the need to develop methods of analysis that highlight old and new patterns
of power and domination through the ‘socio-symbolic structuring of risk’ (2001:305),
‘the privatization of risk’ where as active agents we ‘confront socially produced risks
individually’, and where ‘risk-avoidance is a matter of individual responsibility and
navigation’. They also suggest the commodification of risk through ‘myths, fantasies,
fiction and lies’, and the ‘instrumentalization of identities in terms of lifestyle,
consumption and choice’. These ideas resonated with my readings to date (Hajer,
1995; Dryzec, 1997/2005; Blühdorn, 2002) and in part influenced my methodology
discussed further in Chapter 3. Reflexive decentring was also key, and here I
looked primarily to Caldwell (2007) and Peschl (2007).
87
Caldwell’s (2007) notion of decentred agency, developed through his review and
rearticulation of Foucault’s theories, proved particularly useful in consideration of my
methodological approach, linking empirical analysis with the reflexive process. His
article starts with a provocative question that resonated with my own framing of
concern regarding ‘post’ approaches:
With this apparent destruction of the epistemological and moral
subject of science and rationalism and the eclipse of individual and
collective social action the very idea of a link between agency and
change becomes profoundly problematic. How can there be any
possibility of agency, any hope of change, if human actors as moral
agents and social subjects are unable and incapable of exercising
choice, free will or autonomy? (Caldwell, 2007:2)
Caldwell suggests that there are four key components of decentred agency –
discourse, power/knowledge, embodiment and self-reflexivity. My interest here was
the author’s suggestion that this could allow for ‘new possibilities for resistance and
the dispersal of agency and change in organizations and societies’ (ibid.3). In
focusing on discourse as a way to ask new questions about my constructions of the
world, and in recognition that both body and self are ‘experienced’ through discourse,
there was a space being created for personal engagement with the questions and
the process of enquiry. Foucault (1996 cited in Caldwell, 2007:12) suggests that
some hopeful modern ideas are still required, a source of personal affirmation of my
own idealism perhaps although not without question, emphasizing the
‘indispensability’ of modernist ideas of reason and enlightenment, as well as their
limits and dangers‘. Caldwell’s attention to the ‘aesthetics of existence’ where
through discourses of knowledge, and new forms of disciplinary power we can
‘recover and rediscover ourselves’ (ibid: 17) through a personal sense of purpose
(Lash, 1994, 2003) resonating empirical theories of agency noted earlier (Emirbayer
88
and Mische, 1998; Ahearn, 2001; Newman and Dale, 2005; Biesta and Tedder,
2006; Sen, 2007) and ideas of transformative learning through engaging in an
epistemic dance (Mezirow et al, 2000; Sterling, 2004; Peschl, 2007).
In summary, this chapter has focused on contemporary D/discourses surrounding HE
and change and environmental sustainability, risk and reflexive modernity that raise
pertinent questions for theorising curriculum development in terms of purpose and
relevance (Cortese, 2003; Sousa, 2011; King, 2011; Singh and Little, 2011;
Cochrane and Smith, 2011) . I have briefly presented globalised policy D/discourses
of Sustainable Development and academic D/discourses of postmodernity, reflexive
modernity and risk. Here the educational [curriculum], political [agentic] and
environmental [sustainability] dimensions of D/discourses were discussed in policy
and institutional terms and related to HE curriculum (Kemmis et al, 1983; Fien, 1993;
Askew and Carnell, 1998; Selby, 1999, 2005). The final section of this literature
review looked to D/discourse analysis in preparation for my empirical research, and
my own position[s] within the debates raised so far. I now move to focus on my
empirical study.
89
Chapter 3: Research Methodology and Methods
As noted in the introduction the emphasis of my was to explore the concepts of
curriculum, sustainability and agency in a new context and in original ways thus
contributing to knowledge and potential future dialogue regarding both the topic and
approach (Delanty, 2003; Tregidga et al, 2011). As will be discussed, the analytical
emphasis was on poststructural argumentative, interpretative and reflexive
D/discourse analytical approaches and associated methods in a process that offered
a range of opportunities to deconstruct and reconstruct the data. Here
methodological emphasis was key, and shifts between questions and approaches
(Fairclough, 2001; Wetherell, 1998, 2001a, 2001b; Potter, 2004; Tregidga et al,
2011; Sylvestre et al, 2013) involved a process of ontological self-critique,
epistemological challenge and methodological scepticism, problematizing reality,
truth, intent and motivation (Luke, 1995: 7; Caldwell, 2007). This chapter offers a
critical exploration of the philosophical and theoretical framework of inquiry, with its
associated design, methodology and methods, data collection and analysis. Ethical
considerations are further discussed. While a certain linear logic may be implied in
this rendition of the research process, it was far from linear or logical, involving
cycles, long gaps between stages, meanders, blind alleys and cognitive and affective
turbulence.
My thesis is contextualised through review on contemporary D/discourses
surrounding HE, change and environmental sustainability, risk, post and reflexive
modernity that raise pertinent questions for theorising curriculum development in
terms of purpose and relevance (Cortese, 2003; Sousa, 2011; King, 2011; Singh and
Little, 2011; Cochrane and Smith, 2011). Theoretical debates were linked to
globalised policy D/discourses of Sustainable Development, civil and academic
90
D/discourses of environmental sustainability (Bowers, 1995, 2003; Blühdorn, 2002;
Beck, 1992, 1998; Blewitt, 2008; Wals, 2012) and HE [curriculum] (Kemmis et al,
1983; Fien, 1993; Askew and Carnell, 1998; Selby, 1999, 2005). Here constructs of
political/agentic positionings (Dryzec, 1997, 2005; Hajer, 1995) in contexts and
narratives of change were key (Harré et al, 1999). Reflexivity and ‘triple-loop’/
transformatory learning were also central as I focused on my own agentic
positionings within and through the process (Peschl, 2007; Caldwell, 2007).
While I did not want to ‘lose’ the sense of complexity of context introduced and
outlined through review of literature in my research, or my sense of allegiance to
environmental sustainability and curriculum change, I felt the need and a
requirement within my own institutional and this educational context, to focus on
empirical inquiry rather than maintain my normative focus, concern, questionable
idealism and suggested inaction (Blühdorn, 2002; Wals, 2012). A de-centred
poststructural position was considered to help minimise animosity, antagonism, or
hegemonic regulation in the research process, in ‘accepting the existence of socially
constructed multiple truths’ (Gough and Reid, 2000: 53; Jørgensen and Phillips,
2002). Poststructural D/discourse analysis became my window of opportunity in this
endeavour, for professional reasons already noted and as the ‘crisis of our times’ is
essentially viewed as a discursive and contested phenomenon (Laclau and Mouffe,
1985; Harré and Gillett, 1994; Hajer, 1995; Dryzec, 1997, 2005; Harré et al, 1999;
Jørgensen and Phillips, 2002; Dryzec, 1997). To be open to diversity in a spirit of
democracy curriculum, sustainability and agency were generally envisaged as
‘floating signifiers’ or ‘nodal points’ filled with different meanings (Laclau and Mouffe,
1985; Jørgensen and Phillips, 2002; Tregidga et al, 2013). In this D/discourses
(Alvesson and Kärreman (2000) were taken as involving discursive ‘orders’ and
91
‘coalitions’ that present the hegemonic cultural fixity of Discourse built from the
different articulations of ‘discoursing subjects’ as active agents (Hajer, 1995;
Alvesson and Kärremann, 2000; Jørgensen and Phillips, 2002; Keller, 2013). This
moved the focus beyond dualistic notions of structure and agency to a more fluid
conceptualisation of my own institutional discursive context.
For a number of reasons this thesis has spanned a relatively long period of real time
with multiple interruptions in my studies. While a source of concern in the moments,
this also enabled an unexpected measure of interested objectivity in the process,
particularly in relation to my initial analysis carried out in the summer of 2012 which
could also be treated as discursive data in the main phase of analysis that began a
year later. I started my thesis 2010 when initial review of literature, questions and
methodology were discussed, although subsequently changed from an action
research approach to the current discursive one. Following my first interruption,
primary data collection in the form of interviews took place in the summer of 2012,
when texts [Learning and Teaching Strategies, 2005-2009 and 2010-2014] were also
accessed and initial analysis forwarded. The Sustainability Statement did not appear
until 2013 and was not analysed before I had another break in my studies. I returned
in the autumn of 2013, and having regained consent from participants and the
institution to use existing data, continued the process of analysis and writing until the
end of the summer of 2014. I outline the timescales, data sets, and analytical
techniques used in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Overview of Research Process.
Research Phase
Data Set[s] Analysis Key themes
Review of Literature:
Academic and policy literature:
Critical reading: 2 main phases - context setting
Change:
92
2010 -2014 and during analysis of primary data.
Postmodernity
Risk and reflexive modernity
Higher Education
Curriculum
Sustainable Development
Sustainability
Agency
D/discourse
Analysis of Discourse [texts]
Initial analysis 2012 [summer]
Analysis Autumn 2013 – Summer 2014
Learning and Teaching Strategies: 2005-2009 and 2010-2014. Sustainability Statement.
Linguistic, semiotic and narrative analysis.
Narratives of change
Curriculum and sustainability
Agent positions
Analysis of talk
As Discourse. Summer 2012 and Autumn 2013 – Summer 2014
Interview transcripts [n = 4]
Curriculum (Hökkä et al, 2010) and post-ecological interpretative analysis (Zeyer and Roth, 2011)
‘Curriculum’, environmental and agentic repertoires.
Analysis of talk
As discourse. Summer 2012 and Autumn 2013 – Summer 2014
Interview transcripts [n = 4]
Narrative analysis.
Agentic analysis.
Analysis of self as ‘decentred agent’.
Own texts in earlier phases.
Analytic and reflexive process [2012-2014]
Initial analyses. Analytic and reflexive memos.
Reflexive analysis.
93
The research questions posed, and the theoretical frameworks that have been
examined within the introduction and literature review have tended to indicate my
personal preferences, as did the research techniques initially considered. Gough
and Reid (2000: 84), noted earlier, highlight how our own preferences and habits of
mind influence our choices of topic and approach to research as ‘science-based
profession, a profession based to a greater or lesser extent in something other than
science, or as something other than a profession’. This continuum, they suggest,
has implications for the role of theory in research, and the extent to which we follow
the canons of research.
In a related way Biesta (2011) takes a comparative approach to the academic study
of education, with a focus on the place, or not, for a distinct approach and discipline
for education studies, and the role and status of theory in such inquiry, including
research. The Anglo-American tradition has, according to the author, maintained a
focus on inter-disciplinary or multi-disciplinary understandings of education, where
applied educational theory is essentially drawn from ‘other’ disciplines, particularly
psychology, history, philosophy and sociology, which provide their own ‘critical
canons’ for justifying educational study. His alternative construction, drawn from
European or more specifically German ideas [D/discourses] of education and
research, emphasises the importance of a more teleological, holistic educational
theory and process. I see merit in both these constructions, which could be because
I am half English and half German! It could also link with elements of my own
socialisation and education noted in Chapter 1 (Usher and Edwards, 1994) or some
other ‘reasons’. As noted, my first considered approach was on experiential action
research, something that felt more in tune with existent habits of mind. The shift
towards a more formalised approach, necessary as it seemed, took me out of my
94
comfort zone and at times highlighted feelings of academic inadequacy and ‘imposter
syndrome’ (Brookfield, 1995), although as will be discussed these were themselves
‘decentred’ in the process.
Using existent claims to knowledge as stepping stones to present personal
understandings became an essential part of the decentring process, ‘[k]nowledge is
always mediated by pre-existing ideas and values, whether this is acknowledged by
researchers or not’ (Seale, 1999:470; Toma, 1999; Gustavsen, 2003). What follows
is organised in terms of the POEM of research, my Paradigmatic, Ontological
Epistemological and Methodological framework. Methods, ethical considerations and
D/discourse analytical processes are also critically explored in terms of notions of
their potential and limitations.
Paradigmatic Position
Research paradigms, according to Denzin and Lincoln (2000:19) provide a ‘net that
contains the researcher’s epistemological, ontological and methodological premises’
for research and in action and as such they are individual constructions. It is only by
understanding these basic premises or assumptions about the nature of the world,
and how it can be known, that choices in our approach to research can be informed,
and scholarship can be evaluated using appropriate standards (Toma, 1999), an
important factor given the accredited context of this thesis. Research paradigms
are contested along similar lines noted above (Gough and Reid, 2000; Biesta, 2001)
forming ‘a cluster of beliefs and dictates which for scientists in a particular discipline
influence what should be studied, how research should be done, [and] how results
should be interpreted’ (Bryman, 1988 cited in Bryman, 2001:446). Dewey (1916:
323) noted that paradigmatic distinctions had plagued early educational research,
95
and suggested they set up ‘false dualisms’ [such as positivism/interpretivism,
structure/agency, human/nature].
Subsequent paradigmatic categorisations reflect a move towards accommodation of
further positions and sub-divisions to try to capture the complexity of contemporary
educational research and the social world more generally (Hammersley, 2005, 2007).
Carr and Kemmis (1986) noted 3 distinctive paradigms, positivist, interpretivist and
critical, while Guba and Lincoln (1994) organised scholars into four paradigms –
positivist, post-positivist, critical and interpretive, and have included (Guba and
Lincoln, 2005) a fifth ‘participatory’ paradigm based on the works of Heron (1996)
and Heron and Reason (1997). The latter four categories also reflect the influence
of post-structural and postmodern thinking, in which the world is seen as increasingly
complex, contextual and local, and understanding is therefore indeterminate and
subjective rather than universal and objective (Toohey,1999; Light,2000; Guba and
Lincoln, 2005), reflecting broader changes noted earlier, where ‘[w]ithin the last
decade, the borders and boundary lines between these paradigms and perspectives
have begun to blur’ (Guba and Lincoln, 2005: 183). Ontological and epistemological
stances are seen less as absolutes operating more on a continuum (Toma, 1999;
Biesta, 2007), shaped by history, local contexts and social practices:
Consequently, to argue that it is paradigms that are in contention is
probably less useful than to probe where and how paradigms exhibit
confluence and where and how they exhibit differences, controversies,
and contradictions (Guba and Lincoln, 2005: 192).
Pring (2000:47) also notes that the ‘distinctions within the so-called paradigms are
often as significant as distinctions between them.’ With this potential for flexibility of
approach ontological uncertainty and epistemological fragmentation involves a
96
‘double crisis of representation and legitimation’ (Denzin and Lincoln, 1998; Taylor,
2001:12) discussed in due course.
For reasons noted earlier, my paradigm strongly aligns with poststructuralism (Laclau
and Mouffe, 1985; Jørgensen and Phillips, 2002) where the study of language as
D/discourse that links educational, environmental and agentic genres of curriculum
texts and talk (Hajer, 1995; Alvesson and Kärreman, 2000; Borne, 2013) lies central
to understanding. D/discourse analysis surrounding particular topics such as
curriculum and issues such as unsustainability, it was considered, could highlight or
at least inscribe both the conscious and unconscious assumptions and positions of
D/discourse participants. Through attention to institutional and individual discursive
constructions and patterns of meaning this could also accommodate a measure of
heterogeneity, seen as important empirically, politically and ethically. Laclau and
Mouffe (1985; Jørgensen and Phillips, 2002; Borne, 2014) drawing on theories of
hegemony and subjectivity offered a framework for conceptualising the ‘functions’ of
D/discourse that enabled focus on issues of knowledge, power and individual and
social identities, in contemporary times of risk and reflexive modernity, in part
through symbolic orders of meaning. This was a circulatory dance, where ‘subjects
relate to a range of possible positions in various processes of identification and
subjectivity’ (Laclau, 1996:36-7). While theoretically useful in drawing attention to
subject positions and identity markers in articulations, methodological guidance
needed to be sought elsewhere as discussed below.
Poststructuralists agree, according to Jørgensen and Phillips (2002:12) that
language does not reflect a pre-existing reality, it is instead structured into systems of
D/discourse whereby meaning changes, and in studying the maintenance
[socialisation] and diversity [transformation] of patterns of discursive practices these
97
features can be explored. For the authors (Jørgensen and Phillips, 2002: 205), and
in this study, the concept of critique sought to combine ‘the level of principle and the
concrete, grounded level’ as ‘a positioned opening for discussion’. Analysis involved
different ‘languages of re-description and re-presentation’ of empirical data as
D/discourse[s] (Alvesson and Kärreman, 2000) where curriculum in the context of
sustainability was explored through environmental, educational and political lenses.
Focus in discursive work through a poststructuralist tradition is not so much on what
is said but how, on representation and meaning rather than conversational
conventions and activities, through which ‘society can … be understood as a vast
argumentative texture through which people construct their reality’ (Laclau, 1993
cited in Wetherell, 2001b: 389). This involves the ‘discursive formation’ (Olssen,
2008) of curriculum and sustainability by HE institutional and administrative
manifestations, suggested by Laclau and Mouffe (1985). Here, in line with notions of
risk society, reflexive modernity, and critiques of materialist and realist approaches
as somehow inappropriate in post-ecological times, it sits within more constructionist
theories of meaning. (Gergen, 1994; Wetherell, 2001b; Borne, 2014). This view of
D/discourse also moves away from interpretivism, it does not trust in potential of
disclosed meaning and truth (Schwandt, 2003; Karol and Gale, 2004), and that what
is written, said, and done can only highlight a selective and partial representation of
any notion of reality (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985; Orr, 2009). That is not to say that
D/discourse does not have functional properties (Potter and Wetherell, 1987),
however, but that these are not fully accessible to our knowledge of them.
For Kellner (2005: 57) poststructuralism focuses on situated understanding,
‘stressing the importance of context and the social construction of reality that allows
constant reconstruction’. This requires of us as professional educators and
98
researchers to reflect upon our own subject positions, biases, privileges and
limitations, to reflexively critique and rethink personal assumptions, positions and
practices, something I also felt important as noted earlier and discussed in further
detail below.
Ontological position
Blaikie (2000: 8) describes ontology as the:
claims and assumptions that are made about the nature of social
reality, claims about what exists, what it looks like, what units make it
up and how these units interact with each other. In short, ontological
assumptions are concerned with what we believe constitutes social
reality.
This work proceeds in an ontology based on the constructionist assumption that
social context does not just refer to a particular space and time, but is also
discursively constituted by three basic processes, ‘conversations or symbolic
exchanges, institutional practices, and societal rhetoric’ (Harré and van Langenhove,
2010: 107). The author’s emphasis on notions of discursive positioning and
rhetorical redescription of social acts and societal icons offered a useful way of
conceptualising and bridging the interplay between the global/local,
modern/postmodern, social/natural realms.
A constructionist ontology enables a position that can acknowledge an existent
physical reality [the ontic], but that this is not accessible to human endeavour or
communicable within the limits of language as social practice [the ontological]
(Laclau and Mouffe, 1985; Gergen, 1994, 1999; Jørgensen and Phillips, 2002;
Sarantakos, 2005; Tregidga et al, 2011; Keller, 2013; Borne, 2013Iversen, 2014). In
terms of communicating reality, a key constructionist assertion that ‘there is no
foundational description to be made about an “out there” as opposed to an “in here” .
99
. . once we attempt to articulate “what there is” …. we enter the world of discourse’
(Gergen, 1994:72 cited in Nightingale and Cromby, 2002:703). In other words, both
language and knowledge are seen as socially constructed [we construct it, it is
constructed by us], rather than reflecting or mirroring some ontic objective, knowable
reality attainable through foundational approaches and objectification of the social
other or disembodied self. Here I felt on the edge of what Hammersley (1992)
suggests as ‘a more subtle form of realism’ where ‘for the most part reality is
independent of the claims that social researchers make about it’ (Hammersley, 1992:
51; Maxwell, 2012). I could not get behind any masks of reality as some critical
realists and constructionists might assert, however, but could offer a new masking
(Jørgensen and Phillips, 2002) that might develop personal understanding and
prompt dialogue (Harré et al, 1999; Tregidga et al, 2011).
Using poststructural theory was seen as particularly pertinent to this study
contextualised in times of change, unsustainability and reflexive modernity in that:
Poststructuralist theory encourages a counter-ontological critique of hose broad theories of human development, social agency and social structure that have been used in the last century to analyse and develop educational interventions. In this way, it enables a self-reflexive critique of the modernist and industrial-era administrative and curricular models …… At the same time, it encourages the further development of experimental, interpretive modes of inquiry to examine new educational phenomena. (Luke, 1995: 52).
Viewing texts and talk as an active, creative and ‘selective process of producing
meaning in social contexts’ (Sarantakos, 2005: 39; Davies and Harré, 1990) enabled
a constructionist position where:
the nature of the ontology posited is not a spirit or mind but, influenced by the linguistic turn, a series of practices – habits, actions, mores, customs, languages – that function as open symbolic structures with their own internal logic or form, and from which individuals derive, alter, and reproduce meanings (Olssen, 2006: 198-199).
100
Social constructionism (Gergen, 1994; Roth, 2009:43) also involves an ontological
position emergent from and reflected within an existentialist epistemology where
there is an ‘intimate and active relationship between conscious subject and object of
subject’s consciousness’ (Crotty, 1998: 44; Luttrell, 2009). This has radical
implications for qualitative research, in shifting focus away from interpretivism, noted
above, to a reflexive ‘as if’ stance (Elliott, 2002; Stacey, 2007), that challenges
[modern] suggestions of stability of attitudes, behaviours, or institutional structures,
focusing instead on the practices through which we construct and present the world
in one form rather than another (Potter and Wetherell 1987; Beck, 1994; Schwandt,
2003; Hammersley, 2005). There is, therefore, increased emphasis on
epistemological positioning rather than ontological ideas of the real and truth in
contemporary constructionist and poststructural research debates (Crotty, 1998,
Jørgensen and Phillips, 2002).
Accounting for fixity and diversity in analysis suggested social constructionism and
individual constructivism would be optimum guides to adopt in curriculum research
(Hammersley, 1992; Fairclough, 1992; Dickens, 1996, Chouliaraki and Fairclough,
1999) offering potential to bridge and explore what Goodson (1989: 12; Ahearn,
2001) refers to as ‘the story of action within a theory of context’. My critical ontology
of self, attended to through notions of decentred agency (Caldwell, 2007), was also a
hopeful one:
We can learn to reflect critically on the particular discourses that surround us and we can intervene in discourses that we believe are problematic. Through conscious commitment and effort, we can change the discourses that surround us, over time (Karlberg, 2008:311; Stibbe, 2009).
101
Epistemological Position
Epistemological positioning ‘involves study of social practices by which communities
develop a basis for warranted belief and action’ (Giarelli, 1999:26). It sets the rules
of knowing ‘by drawing boundaries and setting up mechanisms to police those
boundaries’ (Scott and Usher, 1999:11). As such it has as much to do with issues of
politics and power among research communities as it does with logic, and intimately
relates to personal judgements where ‘[r]esearch is the servant of professional
judgement, not its master’ (Pring, 2000: 139).
Epistemologically, my data collection and analysis strategies involved constructionist/
constructivist/reflexive stances (Crotty, 1998; Hammersley, 1992), where I adopted
what Alvesson and Kärreman (2000:1137) describe as a ‘long-range/autonomous
position’, concerned with the extent to which what is said organisationally and
individually is seen as related to other ‘utterances’ on the topic and the implications.
Here, my trans-local discourse analysis approach engaged with academic,
organisational and professional [individual agentic] dimensions of D/discourse, with
curriculum and environmental sustainability forming the ‘nodal points’ (Laclau and
Mouffe, 1985; Jørgensen and Phillips, 2002; Tregidga et al, 2013) around which
these discourses were configured.
Discourse analysis (DA) lay at the heart of my research and as such this thesis is
concerned with:
• human experiences embedded in the discourse or influenced by it
• talk, text and social practices and linguistic content [meanings and topics]
• linguistic structure [grammar and cohesion]
• action, construction and variability
102
• rhetorical or argumentative organisation (Potter and Wetherell, 1994: 48).
Taking an epistemological position that raises ‘post’ modern, ecological and agentic
questions regarding knowledge, language and power allowed for different
methodological approaches that could provide alternative ‘languages of
redescription’ following different analytic rules and processes of translation
(Jørgensen and Phillips, 2007: 207). This was constraining, particularly in terms of
the complexity involved and time needed to engage with multiple analytical lenses. It
was also useful and productive in allowing for my ‘epistemic dance with reality’
(Peschl, 2007), discussed further below.
Dryzec (2005: 20) in his focus on the environmental and political nature D/discourse
suggests certain elements that might come into play in analysis, paying attention to:
1. Basic entities recognised or constructed 2. Assumptions about natural relations 3. Agents and their motives 4. Key metaphors and other rhetorical devices
Here notions of constructionism, interactionism, perspectivism and expressivism
came to the fore, where we do not discover or find but make knowledge, ‘against a
backdrop’ (Schwandt, 2003: 305). Language was viewed, through these particular
lenses, as both ‘system’ and individual ‘resource’, if imperfect and fairly fluid. All
language is interactive addressed to others, real or imagined, and my goal was to
identify the positions and arguments being addressed, countered and ignored in
relation to curriculum, sustainability and agency.
Keller (2013:73) suggests, in his ‘Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse’, a
bridge between cultural and Foucauldian discourse theory in that what is sensed,
103
perceived and experience is mediated through socially constructed and typified
knowledge which is to varying degrees recognised as legitimate and objective. This
for the author is stabilized [becomes hegemonic] by means of dispositifs, the material
and ideational infrastructure where D/discourses are institutionalized, materialized,
reproduced and thereby exert power effects. Keller links this stabilising effect to
interpretative repertoires involving a ‘typified ensemble of interpretative components
of which a discourse consists and which is more or less comprehensively actualised
in individual utterances’ (Keller, 2013: 73). Keller’s attention to situational analysis of
texts and talk drawing on interpretative approaches around thematic and institutional
‘references’ seemed highly pertinent to my study where D/discourse is seen as part
of a socially developed system of communication and representation, enabling us to
articulate coherent meanings (Keller, 2013). In this, according to the author (ibid.: 2),
D/discourse involves ‘more or less successful attempts to stabilize, at least
temporarily, attributions of meaning and orders of interpretation and thereby to
institutionalise a collectively binding order of knowledge’.
Poststructural forms of critique in part represent ‘a specific philosophical response to
the scientistic pretention of structuralism’ (Peters and Burbules, 2004:56). This
therefore situates educational research as epistemically implicated in the
power/knowledge nexus forming its own system of classification. For Keller, subject
positions can be envisaged as ‘places’ contoured in D/discourse and more or less
stabilised institutionally via preconditions for specific qualifications, such as this EdD,
and where we are offered collective identity, institutionally or, for example via models
of environmentally aware citizens (Keller, 2013:74) that position us in relative and
relational ways (Davies and Harré, 1990; Harré and Van Langenhove, 2010).
‘Among the products of discursive practices are the very persons who engage in
104
them’ (Davies and Harré, 1990: 45) and this is where, for the authors,
poststructuralism shades into narratology.
Narratives are social products that are produced by people in the context of specific
social, historical and cultural locations. They offer interpretive devices through which
people represent themselves and their worlds to themselves and to others (Moen,
2006). Hammersley (1992) warns however that cultural connections and
assumptions are also fallible, and can lead us astray just as easily as in the right
direction. He suggests it is important for us to develop ways in which we monitor our
assumptions and the inferences that we make on the basis of them, and investigate
those we judge not to be beyond reasonable doubt (Hammersley, 1992:53). I tried to
capture and monitor the process through the use of memos discussed below.
From my reading and understanding, texts and talk could offer views of stability and
contestation over the appropriate interpretation of socio-political and environmental
problems (Keller, 2013: 37) and related HE curriculum purposes (Kelly, 2009). In this
the socio-cultural context of D/discourse is fundamental (Alvesson and Kärreman,
2000; Harré and Van Langenhove, 2010), dancing with symbolic interactionist
perspectives.
Symbolic Interactionism for Blumer (1969: 2) can explain how:
• Human beings act towards things on the basis of the meanings that these things have for them
• The meaning of such things is derived from, and arises out of, the social interaction that one has with one’s fellows
• These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretive process used by the person in dealing with the thing he encounters.
105
This offers an opportunity for the empirical world to ‘talk back’ to our pictures of it or
assertions about it (Maxwell, 2012:10; O’Donaghue, 2007) linked to my own sense of
epistemological challenge (Luke, 1995) noted earlier.
Keller highlights the importance of framing and reasoning devices in particular
storylines and scenarios and to academic discourses as locations or institutions
within which D/discourses arise, are rooted and develop were key, supporting my
engagement with Hajer’s (1995) approach discussed below. His attention to the
semantic level of meaning rather than linguistic patterns, using ‘semantic scarcity
mechanisms’ (Keller, 2013: 46) was also important, although as will be discussed
linguistic analysis offered a necessary entry into the data in terms of developing
familiarity and confidence in the process. His mention of an epistemic and reflexive
dance with the data echoed Peschl (2007) suggestive of both objective and
subjective lenses and mindsets in inquiry where postmodern/poststructural
approaches embrace involvement and bias, while ethnographic and interpretative
analysis involves measures of engaged objectivity.
Reflexively I was influenced by Peschl’s (2007: 140) ‘epistemo-existential’ U-theory
in terms of the transformative nature of the process as a whole noted in Chapter 1.
While I, like Newman (2012), struggle somewhat with proclamations of
transformation, conscious efforts to be open and honest both to self and the reader in
the process were made through multiple attempts to de-centre self within both data
collection and analysis phases. Taking this further, and given my study was in my
own professional context, it was important to recognise the epistemological emphasis
on issues of the position of the researcher in relation to the researched
(Hammersley, 2004; Harré and Gillett, 1994; Feldman, 1995), translated into a
methodological plan of action.
106
Methodological Position
Methodological consideration:
Concerns the theoretical, political, and philosophical roots and
implications of particular research methods or academic disciplines.
Researchers may adopt particular methodological positions [eg
concerning epistemology or political values] which establish how they
go about studying a phenomenon. This can be contrasted with
method, which generally refers to matters of practical research
technique (Seale, 2012: 578).
Rather than a specific methodology, D/discourse analysis can be seen as a research
field (Wetherell, 2001a) or orientation where a range of methodological approaches
are available in what is a developing discipline (Agger, 1991; Peters and Humes,
2003).
Discourse analysis of texts involved a methodology that engaged with data through
the employment of ‘objectifying techniques’ applied in a privileged position over the
data (Thompson, 1984:134). Key semiotic concepts associated with networks of
social practices are discourses, genres and styles organised into 'orders of
discourse' (Hajer, 1995; Wetherell, 2000a, 2000b; Jørgensen and Phillips, 2002;
Sylvestre et al, 2013).
Hajer (1995: 56) suggests two ‘mid-range’ concepts that can illuminate the process
of D/discourse analysis, ‘story lines’ and ‘discourse coalitions’. The author defines a
‘story-line’ as ‘a generative sort of narrative that allows actors to draw upon various
discursive categories to give meaning to specific physical or social phenomena’
which metaphorically communicate complex debates reductively, using strategies
that potentially disguise bias and contradictions, and/or facilitate dialogue and action.
Using notions of ‘discursive closure’, ‘black-boxing’, and ‘mobilisation’ of bias,
supported by mechanisms of credibility [plausibility, authority], acceptability
107
[attractiveness, necessity] and trust [suppression of doubts linked to evidence]
enables rigour within the process (Hajer, 1995: 59). Discourse-coalitions share story
lines within and beyond institutional contexts and using this analytic concept was
advantageous in linking subjects to broader debates through relational notions of
compromise, co-option and mobilisation of agents around particular concepts.
Drawing on the above and Laclau and Mouffe (1985; Tregidga et al, 2011) curriculum
was taken as a ‘floating signifier’ using concepts of ‘orders of discourse’ (Fairclough,
1995, 2001; Jørgensen and Phillips, 2002), intertextuality (Fairclough, 1995;
Sylvestre et al, 2013) and discursive genres. I also drew on Wodak and
Krzyzanowski’s (2008) and Sylvestre et al’s (2013) concepts of Lexis, Framing and
Structure, and Modality that positioned knowledge, learners and staff in particular
ways. While the terms sustainable development and sustainability were limited in
their use, linguistic and heuristic models of sustainability curriculum were also used
to inscribe the data with positions and potential for this focus in institutional
articulations.
The first phase of analysis was on institutional Discourse linked to publically
accessible documents, specifically Learning and Teaching Strategies (2005-9 and
2010-14), and a single and therefore institutional ‘Sustainability Statement’. Here the
tools and perspectives described shaped attention to analysis through linguistic,
‘rhetorical’ and ‘argumentative’ lenses (Billig, 1991; Hajer, 1995; Fairclough, 2001;
Sylvestre et al, 2013). This held opportunities to take a decentred position of
ontological uncertainty, and epistemic and methodological diversity and humility
(Laclau and Mouffe, 1985; Jörgensen and Phillips, 2002; Caldwell, 2007; Agger,
1991; Blühdorn, 2002). Analysis was initially grounded in the data, deconstructing
and reconstructing the texts and linking this to broader theories and notions of
108
discursive orders introduced in my review of literature. Alongside this, bigger scoops
of language (Quinn, 2009) were analysed using a narrative approach that looked to
temporal changes in storylines and associated educational and environmental
genres of D/discourse that could be read as if indicative of representing more or less
sustainable ways of speaking. Regulated [formal] ways of speaking and writing
about the world in education, what Alvesson and Kärreman (2000) refer to as the
durable meaning of language, may imply forms of social organisation and practices
that structure institutions and constitute people as thinking, feeling, acting subjects
and here cultural politics also concerns issues of subjectivity (Foucault, 1970; Keller,
2013).
Drawing on Laclau and Mouffe (1985), Iversen (2014: 57) provided a useful
framework for the study of ‘recurring curriculum documents’ viewing outward facing
documents as ‘political texts’ which he calls ‘iterative curriculum discourse analysis’.
This ‘hinges on identifying key words and phrases that mean different things to
different people, and then, tracing the changing and competing use of these words
through repeated instances over time’, through seven distinct stages. As something
already underway in terms of my own analysis, his ideas suggested a measure of
affirmation with my own approach to date as I used it as a lens to look back on the
process.
Iverson suggests identification of ‘key nodes’, words and phrases used differently
over time and by different actors grounded in the documents themselves. The
second step focuses on ‘chains of equivalence’ and ‘chains of difference’ that can, if
noticed, inscribe the wider ‘web[s] of meaning[s]’ surrounding the nodes. The third
step establishes a ‘web of meaning’, achieved through coding that shifts from
‘theory-laden concepts towards a grounded theory-style approach where the
109
concepts emerge from the material seemingly regardless of the questions asked by
the researcher’ (Iversen, 2014: 59). The author combines the fourth, fifth and sixth
steps that then seeks to identify chains of equivalence and difference in the next text
in the corpus, layering webs of meaning.
Iversen highlights potential, using this approach to capture the ‘rich tapestry of the
possible meanings, associations, debates and concerns that come to the use’ and ‘a
range of interpretive possibilities within which any individual actor will engage some
of these associations more than others’ (Iversen, 2014: 61-2), linking to similar
arguments progressed by Hajer (1995) and poststructuralism more generally. The
seventh and final step suggested by Iversen, is a focus on chains of difference,
linking to a more Derridian form of analysis than that suggested by Laclau and
Mouffe (1985). The fixity of Discourse as ‘common sense’ and ‘folklore’ noted earlier
highlights the discursive circulation of ideas between HE and wider society that can
call into question the focus on sustainability as an educational goal. In moving from
formal to informal curriculum in my own HE institutional context the Sustainability
Statement offered an insight into institutional articulations and became a stepping
stone into analysis of environmental and agentic D/discourses that could be linked to
prior and subsequent analyses and discussion.
While the original emphasis was on Discourse, discursive patterns and notions of
fixity, the next phase of inquiry focused on the complexity and heterogeneity within
discourse, noted as a key feature in contemporary times. Methodological
situationalism focuses on the collective and dynamic processes through which
meanings are constructed, acquired and transformed as a phenomenon of
communication (Harré, 2004; Harré et al, 2009; Davies and Harré, 1990, Zelle,
110
2009). As such our conversations can potentially ‘reverse the hegemonic flow’
(Tirado and Gálvez, 2007). Here a more interpretative and narrative approach was
adopted, noting discursive positions in and through individual and interactive
storylines. This offered a way of organising information and linking action and
agency to structures although without assuming or asserting that they reflect these
structures. Here I felt myself the ‘swampy lowlands’ of research although
‘[a]bandoning the “quest for certainty” does not require abandoning the search for
knowledge’ (Torrés, 1999: 110).
In terms of interpretative analysis of talk, attention was paid to analytic tools linking
discursive notions of function, context and subject positions (Potter & Wetherell,
1987; Hökkä et al, 2010; Zeyer and Roth, 2011). Here patterns within the data were
read into both individual and across interview transcripts, highlighting the collective
and fluid nature of D/discourse as discursive practice. Biographical narrative
analysis did not therefore need to feature in this approach, considered important in
maintaining respondent anonymity discussed in my analysis. In analysis multiple
readings brought to mind different patterns of speaking that, following Hökkä et al
(2010) and Zeyer and Roth (2011) sought to explore different thematic
reconstructions that linked curriculum, sustainability and agency in the context of
change, risk and reflexive modernity. Overlaying existent repertoires onto the data
allowed for a measure of objectivity that, as noted, I felt needed in challenging my
own intuitive readings. In this tools drawn from textual analysis continued to dance
with me. Hökkä et al (2010) offered a useful lens for highlighting curriculum
discourses of accommodation and reform, which also allowed some measure of
association to sustainability and agency using postecological repertoires (Zeyer and
Roth, 2011) as will be discussed.
111
The final focus and phase of analysis continued my focus on agency reflexively in the
context of transformative learning. For Sterling:
it appears that transformative learning arises from the interaction between the state of readiness of the learner and the quality of the learning environment to yield a particular learning experience as an emergent property of that interaction (Sterling, 2010-11: 27).
Prior emphasis on discursive reproduction and constraints, while important, cannot
prove sufficient in notions of agency and change, ‘until we adopt a far more multiple,
contingent and fractured conception of society – and of structure’ (Sewell, 1992 cited
in Emirbayer and Mische, 1998:1005). Building on Mead the authors offer three lines
of questioning that proved important in my own analytical formulations, which they
note ‘might point to new initiatives in empirical research’ (ibid:1005).
• How do different temporal-relational contexts support (or conduce to)
particular agentic orientations?
The task in engaging with this question was translated to conceptions/positions and
agency as constructed in institutional curriculum texts, and suggested within the
reformative/ transformative configurations of sustainability. The authors make an
exploratory proposition that ‘[actors who face changing situations that demand [or
facilitate] the reconstruction of temporal perspectives can expand their capacity for
imaginative and/or deliberative response’ (ibid: 1006), and ‘[a]ctors who are
positioned at the intersection of multiple temporal-relational contexts can develop
greater capacities for creative and critical intervention’.
• How do changes in agentic orientations allow actors to exercise
different forms of mediation over their contexts of action?
Addressing this question involves reversal of the focus in the first question,
examining ‘how changes in agentic orientations give actors varying capacities to
112
influence the diverse contexts in which they act’ (ibid: 1008). Here the authors
suggest ‘[a]ctors who feel blocked in encountering problematic situations can actually
be pioneers in exploring and reconstructing contexts in action’(ibid: 1009).
• How do actors reconstruct their agentic orientations and thereby alter
their own structuring relationships to the contexts of action?
This involves the self-reflexive dimension of this inquiry where ‘[b]y subjection their
own agentic orientations to imaginative recomposition and critical judgement, actors
can loosen themselves from past patterns of interaction and reframe their
relationships to existing constraints’ (ibid: 1010).
The emphasis here was on individual narratives of change, education and
sustainability that attempted to go beyond modelling, to read new creative meanings
into the data that might suggest a ‘language of possibility’ (Harré et al, 2009) and
highlight my own engagement in the process. As noted below, analytical and
reflexive memos became key here, linking earlier analysis with subsequent
engagement with the data, and in this looking towards my own articulations,
narratives and reflections as sources of data and learning (Peschl, 2007; Mezirow,
2000; Sterling, 2011) discussed further below.
Research Methods
In terms of methods, this is where the ‘craft skill’ (Seale, 1998:472), or art (Biesta,
2007) is made evident in practice. For O’Donoghue (2007:20) methods are
‘adaptive and depend on the judgements and abilities of the inquirer’, and part of my
concern were my own perceived strengths and weaknesses. As noted, I was prone
to particular habits of mind, themselves perhaps hegemonic (Apple, 2004), in their
limiting and constraining of possibilities and potential, and in dissolving a personal
113
sense of agency in the process. Again however judgements were made and actions
were taken, and much of the learning came from the experience rather than the
intention.
Purposive sampling is deemed appropriate for D/discourse analytic studies (Guba
and Lincoln, 1982; Hammersley, 2007), and Quinn (2009) suggests a modest sample
size given the labour intensive, time consuming nature of D/discourse analysis,
something particularly pertinent to this study given my methodological emphasis
using multiple analytic lenses. Strategic sampling was employed to try to gain some
measure of breadth and depth of data, and to facilitate positioning of the local in the
more grandiose (Alvesson and Kärreman, 2000). To this end documents were
sought that would facilitate measures on contextualisation, comparison and
evaluation – specifically institutional Learning and Teaching Strategies [2005-2009
and 2010-2014] and a university ‘Sustainability’ Statement [accessed 2013]. A
similar sampling strategy was involved in relation to interviews where respondents
were chosen who might offer different ways of speaking about the topic, challenging
‘prepositioned notions of dominant culture’ and to reflect the transdisciplinary nature
of our organisation (Bruner, 1990:30; Harré et al, 1999; Quinn, 2009; Silverman,
2010; Peters and Wals, 2013). Originally seven interviews were completed, although
given the gaps in my studies, only four are featured in this thesis. Of course my
selections silenced more than it included, but this inquiry was and is considered the
first step in a longer dance discussed earlier.
Methods for Analysis of Texts as Discourse
Focus: Learning and Teaching Strategies 2005-2009 and 2010-2014; 1
Sustainability ‘Statement’. All publically available via University website at time of
access.
114
According to Sylvestre et al (2013) strategies, declarations and other institutional
documents can be conceived as representative of consensus of the authoring
agency. They also are seen as useful in that they tend to be pared down to salient
features, involving ideal types, concepts and mental constructions that are often
imaginative and utopian in intent and content (Crotty, 1998:70). Discourse as
institutionalised use of language and language-like systems was linked to wider
discursive patterns through inscription of conceptual and constructive ideal types, in
this case utilising the curriculum models, typologies and repertoires introduced earlier
and discussed shortly.
Deconstructive fracturing of the data (Feldman, 1995; Charmaz, 2006), was
enhanced by attention to larger structures of meaning making. The emphasis was on
curriculum in the context of sustainability (Reid and Petocz, 2006), the sedimented or
‘durable’ nature of Discourses (Alvesson and Kärreman, 2000; Iversen, 2014;
Sylvestre et al, 2013), although the notion of intertextuality was adopted here to
suggest a ‘loose coupling’ rather than determinism of wider patterns and proclivities.
Texts were also considered as narratives of change. I offer here a description of the
techniques and the process, with Table 3 summarising the key objectifying
techniques used on initial readings and coding of the texts.
Table 3: Objectifying Techniques and Tools used in initial coding and analysis
of institutional documents
Key terms/tools Use in analysis
Intertextuality – links to other texts
(Fairclough, 1992, 2001, 2003;
Sylvestre et al, 2013)
Through processes of
decontextualisation and
recontextualisation from other texts this
can highlight patterns and genres, and
115
Key terms/tools Use in analysis
diversity linked potentially to local
situation of authors or speakers within a
wider, past or anticipatory context.
Modality – indicates probability and/or
necessity
(Sylvestre et al, 2013; Wetherell, 2001)
Words like ‘can, will may’ or ‘must,
should, need’.
Indicative of certainty or commitment.
Commitment as deontic modality how
things ‘ought’, ‘should’ be – normative
and temporal emphasis implied.
Nominalization – removing agents/
naturalisation of affairs
(Fairclough, 2003; Sylvestre et al, 2013;
Porter, 2007)
Words and phrases changed often from
verbs to nouns or adjectives, removing
agents and potentially naturalising
assertions
Text – in moving from linguistic and deconstructive to ‘big scoops’ of language (Wetherell, 2001;Wodak and Krzyzanowski, 2008)
Larger structures of meaning making,
cohesive ties, paraphrasing
Code – brings models into play (Quinn, 2009: 240)
Reflexive reasoning behind propositions
Lexis – patterns and choice of words (Harré et al, 1999)
Into which meanings and actor labels
are encoded
Transivity – who does what to who
(Sylvestre et al, 2103)
Can highlight argumentative structure,
perception, cognition and emotion
through use of clauses
Perspectives
(Blackledge and Hunt, 1991)
Perspectives made up of: aims and
objectives, what is significant, reasons
given for action, expected outcomes of
action.
Interdiscursivity
(Fairclough, 2001)
Links from and in texts of different
genres involves structures and
strategies of text and talk
This emphasised Laclau and Mouffes’ (1985) ‘discourse’ and Mezirow’s (2000)
‘hegemony’ patterned into the texts. With just one posting relating to sustainability
on the website, similar analysis was progressed although also drawing in Kellert’s
(1993) values of ‘nature’ in an effort to focus on sustainability [in informal curricula
terms] which was explicitly lacking in previous documents sampled (Jόhannesson et
116
al, 2011). Patterning strategies also brought to light the diversity of discourse in
texts, and of ‘interdiscursivity’ (Fairclough, 1995), ‘articulations’ (Laclau and Mouffe,
1985), or Mezirow’s (2000) ‘negotiations’ highlighting how notions of concensus are
less stable than more structural approaches might suggest.
However, while D/discourse could be objectified and schematically fixed through the
inscription of meaning, an ongoing decentred approach was important and, as noted,
I actively sought ways to avoid a position as ‘locus of authority’ (Lather, 1991) and to
be more alert to and tolerant of diversity and ambiguity (Maclure, 2003). The hope
was to become more personally receptive to my organisational ‘beat’ (Meadows,
2001) this and potential for change (Mezirow, 2000, 2003; Slaughter, 2004; Caldwell,
2007; Peschl, 2007), although correspondence rather than reference was assumed
(Gergen, 1994; Sayer, 2001).
Borne’s (2013) focus on the ‘practical implications of risk’ as a ‘culturally perceived’
and constructed phenomenon was, in light of my earlier discussion, important, and
here environmental or post ecological repertoires (Kellert, 1993; Zeyer and Roth,
2011), were found to offer conceptual and heuristic models for analysis of discourse
within the Sustainability Statement and particularly in analysis of interview data.
Interpretative repertoires can highlight the possibilities of language offered to
speakers, becoming the resources they draw on to develop versions of significant
events or topics. Attention to the routine arguments, descriptions and evaluations in
interview data could offer another way of exploring D/discourse. It also continued to
depersonalise the process as discussed earlier:
In the repertoire-driven discourse analytical approach, it is the account, the discourse that becomes the primary object of research, rather than seeing it as a transparent representation of an individual’s
117
attitudes and beliefs or the true nature of events (McKenzie, 2003 cited in Zeyer and Roth, 2011:36; Wetherell, 2001b; Keller, 2013).
Here, as noted, I drew on particular tools that could link educational, environmental
and agentic dimensions of analysis – if loosely. The first focus with regard to the
Sustainability Statement utilised Kellert’s framework as set out in Table 4 below:
Table 4: Nine perspectives describing humans’ relationship with nature
(Kellert, 1993; Gullone, 2000:306)
Perspective Description
Utilitarian The biological advantage afforded to humans in their exploitation of nature’s vast resources including food, clothing, tools, medicine and shelter.
Naturalistic The satisfaction that humans derive through their contact with nature – contact characterised by fascination, wonder, and awe at nature’s beauty, complexity and diversity (cf Kaplan and Talbot, 1983).
Ecologistic – scientific
The motivation to systematically study the biophysical patterns, structures, and functions of the natural world. This motivation involves a sense of satisfaction at experiencing the complexity of natural processes, quite separately from their utility.
Aesthetics The preference for natural design over human design has been demonstrated in a variety of studies (e.g. see Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989 for review).
Symbolic Refers to humans’ use of nature symbols to communicate. As noted by Kellert (1993), over 90 percent of the characters employed in children’s language acquisition and counting books are animal characters. Also, natural symbols also feature prominently in mythology, fairy tales, and legends.
Humanist The human experience of a deep emotional connection with the sentient aspects of nature and its individual elements.
Moralistic The strong feeling of affinity, and the sense of an ethical responsibility for the natural world as is often associated with the views of indigenous people.
Dominionistic Refers to the desire to master and control the natural world, often associated with destructive tendencies
Negativistic Refers to negative affect associated with nature experiences including fear, aversion and disgust.
Using this framework involved looking to patterns of speech and particular phrasing
that could be inscribed and reconstructed as linked to particular values and
118
perspectives, although their dualistic rather than relational nature was noted, and in
many ways this formed a stepping stone into analysis of talk, although again it
continued to dance with me.
Methods for Analysis of Talk as D/discourse
Focus: 4 interview transcripts following interviews of approximately an hour to an
hour and a half long, with colleagues involved in teaching, managing and
curriculum development.
While limitations in terms of meaning and truth danced with me (Torrés, 1999), the
next phase of research focused on curriculum and post ecological repertoires,
generated by Hökkä et al (2010) and Zeyer ad Roth (2011) respectively, through the
author’s research in different European contexts. Here the emphasis on
metaphorical analysis developed by the authors offered another useful lens through
which to view the data. Alongside environmental ‘positions’, temporal positioning sits
at the heart of sustainability, and in discourse writers or speakers can also articulate
‘moral assessments and expressions of time mingled with aesthetic values’ (Harré et
al, 1999: 9) which can reveal meanings within particular cultural-historical contexts.
McKeown and Hopkins (2003:125) share this notion of D/discourse, and suggest that
it is at the cultural or organisational level of analysis that interpretation and
implementation of international agreements ‘develop a local interpretation and a fuller
meaning’.
Zeyer and Roth (2011) citing Nikel and Reid (2006) list characteristics of post-
ecologism that were of interest particularly in analysis of interview data (Zeyer and
119
Roth, 2011: 36). From their research the authors developed an analytic framework
with two particular repertoires, involving four descriptions and ten metaphors. Their
focus on ‘common sense’ repertoires might be able to capture hegemonic
Discourses, while their description of the ‘agentic’ repertoire fitted with my
poststructural gaze on the political nature of discourses. Table 5 below highlights the
repertoires developed by Zeyer and Roth which were overlaid on the data discussed
further in the analysis section of this thesis.
Table 5: Post ecological interpretative repertoires [adapted from Zeyer and
Roth, 2011)
Repertoire Description Core metaphor
Common sense repertoire
Me-thing Folk science
Machine Input-operation-output Human action > bad weather Different input > good weather
Me-you Folk psychology
Alter-ego Actions – mental, intentional states
Agential repertoire
Ideal – real Pragmatist repertoire
In ideal world – values, mental goals Incompatible with Real world contingencies – practical goals striven for
Self – others Control repertoire
Agency [self] tension with agency of others Control outside of self – heteronomy
ACCEPTANCE OF IN PRINCIPLE RELEVANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES FOLK SCIENCE/PRAGMATIST – general full acceptance of in principle relevance of environmental issues – mock attitudes that belong to ideal world FOLK PSYCHOLOGY/PRAGMATIC – must not overstate despite seriousness, won’t be good for students
REPLACEMENT OF THE EMANCIPATORY SUBJECT ORIENTED NOTION OF MODERNIZATION PRAGMATIST – innovation and change as intrinsic values [links to vibrant] often without evidence, will be good for students?
NEO MATERIALIST AND CONSUMPTION ORIENTED PATTERNS FOLK PSYCHOLOGY – grammatically impersonal – shows finalizing power of folk psychology; undisputed societal norm FOLK SCIENCE/PRAGMATIST – consumerism drives progress via investment
DISILLUSIONMENT ABOUT THE PARTICIPATORY REVOLUTION CONTROL [antagonistic version of agential repertoire] – questions agency and role of emancipatory subject, frequently anonymous others, relationships block all sensible action to improvement for education and environment. Heteronomy - Locus of control with others – FOLK SCIENCE - Often call for political leadership, organisational argument – system in which politics not representative of power but experts of social machinery
REGULATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OF POLITICAL PRIORITIES BEHIND
120
SOCIAL MEASURES PRAGMATIST/FOLK SCIENCE – only one of many problems
INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS FOLK SCIENCE – social machinery, not personal, instrumental social needs CONTROL – proposals of social engineering
ECOLOGICAL PROBLEMS AS SCIENTIFIC TECHNICAL ECONOMIC MANAGERIAL FOLK SCIENCE – social engineering rather than changing attitudes, managerial, scientific, technical Responsibility to anonymous experts, impersonal references salient. Issues remain vague and sometimes incorrect or too expensive. Can result in deep scepticism for >
VISIONS OF A RADICALLY DIFFERENT ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY
POLITICAL PRAGMATISM AND ECONOMIC GROWTH, TECHNICAL PROGRESS AND GLOBAL COMPETITION PRAGMATIST/FOLK PSYCHOLOGY –rejects idealism for practical goals. Personal attitudes rejects dogmatic visions, hesitant, ambivalent about global progress and economic growth
RADICAL ECOLOGY AND DIRECT ECO-POLITICAL ACTION AS VARIANTS OF TERRORISM PRAGMATIST – ironic, discourse indignation at breaking discursive rules
The methodological interest and emphasis of my thesis sought to enhance the
validity of this inquiry by engaging in different forms of analysis [triangulation] to
probe my own readings and interpretations (Lather, 1991: 9; Wodak and
Krzyzanowski, 2008; Golafshani, 2003). In terms of curriculum analysis as noted
Hökkä et al’s (2010) repertoires offered another useful lens through which to view the
data, linking to and challenging prior codings and analyses. Their repertoires drawn
from research in are included in Table 6 below:
Table 6: Curriculum Interpretative Repertoires (adapted from Hökkä et al, 2010)
Analytic
tools
Interpretative repertoires
The accommodation meta-
repertoire
The reform meta-repertoire
Competition Practical knowledge
Collaboration Research based knowledge
Break with tradition
Function of the talk
To emphasise the demanding nature of
To provide a critique of development
To increase collaboration between
To emphasise teacher
To justify the demand
121
curriculum development, seen as an internal process within the department
plans involved in the curriculum reform
teacher educators – especially between educators within the department
education as an academic enterprise
for radical curriculum reform
Context of the talk
The repertoire occurred many times in each interview, as a self-evident and natural matter
The repertoire was drawn on within a critique of plans to integrate studies – especially the teaching of school subject studies.
(i) Occurred when describing work with other partners (e.g. within the subject departments, or with Normal School staff) (ii) Occurred when talking about future expectations
Appeared especially in talk of what teacher education should be in the years to come
Occurred as a critique, aimed against resistance to curriculum development plans
Subject position of teacher educator
(i) Defender of and lobbyist for one’s own subject matter (ii) Conscientious Teacher
Subject teacher
Bridge builder Teacher educator as researcher
Preserver of the old “seminar spirit” tradition
Emphasis on this socio-cultural approach involving critical discursive psychology
continued my emphasis on the political nature of discourse that emphasises
‘variability, inconsistency and unreliability’ (Hökkä et al, 2010: 849) in people’s talk,
and pays attention to micro-level details in a global or macro-level layer of analysis
(Alvesson and Karreman, 2000). In this subject positions imply different identities
made available through D/discourses ‘that connect dominant cultural storylines to
construction of particular selves’ (Hökkä et al, 2010: 850; Hajer, 1995). I also tried to
be alive to the constructive ways in which colleagues were able to ‘talk for
themselves’ (Corbin, 2008: vii) as we talked ‘with each other’ (Zelle, 2009; Harré,
1994; Davies and Harré, 1990).
122
Narratives, as forms of discourse, had been considered particularly pertinent in this
stage of the research, given that they are produced by people in the context of
specific social, historical and cultural locations, and also given the teleological nature
of stories of educational curriculum and sustainability. Narratives offer interpretive
devices through which people represent themselves and their worlds to themselves
and to others (Davies and Harré, 1990; Harré, 1994; Moen, 2006; Zelle, 2009), and
as such could enhance the process I felt. However I had particular ethical issues in
presenting individual narratives, in that they undermined potential anonymity of
respondents in what is a small institution, and discursive melding was needed to
avoid others potential recognition of individual speakers.
Interview data were collected and analysed to highlight if and how colleagues
reflected or refuted institutional discourses, and wider discourses of [un]sustainability
in curriculum development. Here in a poststructural constructionist/ constructivist
framing interviews were seen not as a means of eliciting the truth of feeling or
meaning but more as a convenient way of generating data for analysis (Hammersley,
2007). The interviews were conducted in the summer of 2012 and they took place in
physical spaces chosen by respondents. Interviews were loosely semi-structured
(Quinn, 2009), and the manner of the interviews was generally informal and
conversational. The main reason for the informal nature of the interviews was based
on an assumption that as I knew all interviewees as colleagues, this is how they
would ‘naturally’ progress. I was somewhat mistaken in this assumption, as each
interviewee seemed to act on different assumptions or take on different positions
within these social events as will be discussed.
Within the process of data collection I had considered the importance of effective
communication, and in some ways this was particularly pertinent in the interview
123
process. While ‘language is seen as both carrier and creator of a culture’s
epistemological codes’ (Lather, 1991: 111), at the same time, however, I was aware
that this notion of a shared language or shared understanding needed to be treated
with caution (Quinn, 2009; Silverman, 2010). As suggested earlier I had felt that my
own lack of disciplinary ‘expertise’ might be both enabling and constraining in the
research process, and that constraints would in part be overcome through the use of
objectifying techniques.
Interview questions looked to breadth of coverage, while allowing for individual
stories to emerge. Here particular areas were discussed only prompted by questions
on occasion to maintain a measure of focus, the broad themes that shaped the
interviews included:
An overview of respondent’s roles and responsibilities with regard to
curriculum development and knowledge generation.
Changes experienced institutionally in recent years, and their impact on
curriculum development and professional agency.
Agentic positions with regard to sustainability, and if and how this concept
features/might feature in curriculum development.
All respondents had been part of the organisation for all of the time covered by the
texts used in the first phase of analysis to allow some attempts at narrative and
discursive comparison. Colleagues interviewed also held a measure of responsibility
for curriculum development although some more than others and in different
capacities, all aligned to different academic disciplines or vocational orientations. In
this, I looked to a view of diversity in discursive circulation within our institutional
124
context, fitting given my early dance with this methodological approach. An
important emphasis in interviews, suggested by Quinn (2009), was not so much on a
question and answer format which for the author may not provide the flow of
conversation essential if one is to access the richness of data necessary to engage
in D/discourse analysis. Foregrounding referential knowledge for Quinn can also
lead responses, and restrict them to my own topics, schemas and themes, as such I
had only considered areas for discussion noted above rather than questions, and in
some ways this was not an issue given the informality of approach that I suggested
suited my own stance. My foregrounding of research was, however, considered
important in offering informed consent to respondents.
Conversations while potentially generating rapport, increase the potential indexing of
shared cultural assumptions, where the presumption of mutual understanding can
limit both the data generated and analysis. Despite knowing each of the respondents
for some time, and the informality of our conversations prior to inquiry, I was
surprised at how and the extent to which colleagues directed the style of interview,
and in some ways, despite reading about the ‘how to do’ interviews (Radnor, 1994;
Kvale 1996; Johnson and Weller, 2002; Wengraf, 2002), this created a sense of
personal discomfort, both in terms of the process and potential ascription of poor
quality of data. One point of reflection at the time was that in interviews I was more
of an ‘outsider’ than I thought as I became increasingly aware of positioned
differences that I had not noted in our more informal or even working relationships.
While in my working life and normative emphasis on sustainability this might have
been considered an issue, a barrier to working together, in research this was
reviewed as a strength, moving from the angst and fundamentalism considered
earlier (Blühdorn, 2002) and even from more negative conceptualisations of reflexive
125
modernity (Beck, 1992; 1994; 1998; 2008). My dance with an agential and reflexive
focus that sought to reconsider the articulations of others (Meadows, 2001;
Emirbayer and Mische, 1998; Alkire, 2008; Peschl, 2007) in the context of an
existential self could also be enhanced, I felt, through this approach.
Strauss et al (1964) suggest that engaging in interviews to generate data as
examples of D/discourse involves four different types of questioning. Playing ‘devil’s
advocate’ could illuminate the speakers position, hypothetical questions could elicit
their thinking discursively, asserting an ideal position could elicit their perception of
the ideal, and offering my assertions could highlight their frames of reference. I
consciously and more frequently seemed to adopt these strategies as the interviews
progressed creating ‘emotional and motivational hotspots’ (Thompson, 2004; Quinn,
2009) that proved useful in analysis of positioning within the interactions, although
ethically this seemed somewhat manipulative and relationally challenging in its
practice.
With permission, interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim, except where
colleagues ‘named names’ of the institution, particular roles or persons. In order to
allow respondents the opportunity to further cleanse the data of any information that
they did not want included, member checks were used (Guba and Lincoln, 1989;
Seale, 2012). This was an ethical move rather than involving an attempt to get
closer to the meaning of respondents as in more interpretivist approaches. None of
the respondents wanted to change their transcripts which for me further evidenced
the openness and trust that reciprocally pervaded this inquiry. While I tried to be
both politically and ethically sensitive in the process, it raised certain issues
regarding externally facing notions of reliability and validity in qualitative inquiry
considered during my own research.
126
Initial Consideration of the Limitations of D/discourse Analysis
Critics of D/discourse analysis have pointed to its lack of systematicity, transparency
and foundational guidelines or governing principles in research (Flick, 2002).
Denscombe (2007: 310) sums up this position:
A disadvantage of using discourse analysis . . . is that it does not lend
itself to the kind of audit trail that might be needed to satisfy
conventional evaluations of the research. It is not easy to verify its
methods and findings . . . because the approach places particularly
heavy reliance on the insights and intuition of the researcher for
interpreting the data.
Part of my own methodological emphasis sought to highlight the process in as much
detail as possible in order to overcome challenges to this thesis on these grounds.
Validity is ‘a contingent construct, inescapably grounded in the processes and
intentions of particular research methodologies and projects’ (Winter, 2000 cited in
Golafshani, 2003:602). In terms of my constructivist fallibilistic ontology, notions of
plausibility, credibility and relevance came into play (Hammersley, 1992), similar to
Cronbach’s (1975) idea of ‘working hypothesis’ (Lincoln and Guba, 1985;
Eisenhart,2009). Triangulation was also seen to offer a validating approach
(Hammersley, 1992; Zelle, 2009; Seale, 2012) again part of the crafting of research
practice and a hopeful and humble stance. For Hammersley (1992) triangulation
exercises can add to the credibility of a particular account. In positioning theory it is
seen to offer opportunities for the comparing, cross-referencing or cross-examining
of positions that are found in the data at each level of analysis (Zelle, 2009: 9-10).
Seale (2012: 473) also notes the value of ‘triangulation exercises’ in generating
material for [poststructural] discourse analytic studies, enhancing for him ‘their
coherence and fruitfulness’ (Potter and Wetherell, 1994). He suggests a range of
qualitative research skills that I could draw on as I crafted the process including
127
member checking, accounting for negative instances, the grounding of theory,
deconstructive approaches and reflexive accounting, all of which I tried to address, if
implicitly in this study.
In many ways, notions of ‘new masking’ through the poststructural lens (Jørgensen
and Phillips, 2002) will disallow traditional validating methods to some degree with
the qualities of research judged by readers as well as self and colleagues as
reflexive agents in the research process. Seale (1999: 486; 2012) notes measures
of trustworthiness, descriptive and interpretive validity in constructionist research.
Hajer (1995: 59), as noted earlier, uses similar terms suggesting ‘mechanisms of
credibility [plausibility, authority], acceptability [attractiveness, necessity] and trust
[suppression of doubts linked to evidence] enables rigour within the process’.
Citing Guba and Lincoln (1989) Seale suggests a range of politically sensitive
measures of quality, stressing inclusivity and fairness within the process and a range
‘authenticities’ that should be present in relation to the practice of research (see also
Golafshani, 2003). I could not necessarily link these approaches in relation to
colleagues involved, and my sample was less than inclusive. Of the limited number
of interviews originally conducted, three of the respondents had left the institution
subsequent to interviews precluding further conversations or opportunities for re-
informed consent. In this light, measures were more useful in my agentic
consideration of the process (Caldwell, 2007; Slaughter, 2004: Emirbayer and
Mische, 1998; Peschl, 2007).
Ontological authenticity – Have I developed a more sophisticated understandings of the phenomenon? Although I might suggest this is an epistemic question.
Educative authenticity – Have I been more attentive to and appreciative of alternative perspectives and positions?
128
Catalytic authenticity – Has the research process stimulated any action/change?
Tactical authenticity – Has the process enabled me to enact change towards sustainability? (adapted from Seale, 1999: 468; 2012: 488-9)
Another focus of quality in this research process was on reducing the extent to which
participants experienced our interactions as ‘irrational, unproductive, unjust or
unsatisfying’ (Kemmis and Wilkinson, 1998:23). Research is a form of practice
incorporating personal, political and moral relationships with those involved (Brown et
al, 2003: 88). Alderson (2004: 98) notes that the rules of ethical research are based
on three main ways of thinking about the nature of ‘good’ research. These include:
1) principles of respect and justice 2) rights-based research 3) best outcomes based ethics
This demanded an ethical approach in which I tried to be dependable, open, honest,
trustworthy and foster relationships of respect (Brown et al, 2003). This study also
involved certain ‘rules of engagement’ such as assurances of privacy, confidentiality,
personal safety and well-being, and of informed consent, voluntary participation and
the right to discontinue (Burns, 2000). In this, University of Exeter and BERA (2011)
guidelines were consulted, and enacted to the best of my knowledge and ability.
Throughout, communication regarding the process with those involved in data
collection phases [institutionally and individually] sought informed consent as an
ongoing feature that could maintain ethical involvement. Other measures noted
above were key, but in many ways this involved a critical and reflexive stance in the
process rather than involving specific techniques.
129
Reflection and Reflexivity
Reflexive positioning enables communication of how my sense of self as researcher
and professional has been perceived to inform the questions, approaches and
purposes of research (Wolcott, 2010). Maton (2003: 54) suggests that reflexivity and
explicit positioning in qualitative inquiry enables assessment of my knowledge,
individual and social identities, and can reveal ‘(often hidden) doxic values and
assumptions’. As noted earlier, the necessity of critical reflection and reflexivity has
been recognised as a method and model of research.
Slaughter’s (2004:6-11) reflexive emphasis on both continuity and change, along
with questions suggested by Emirbayer and Mische (1998) proved useful in
grounding my research in a more appreciative light, supporting a more hopeful rather
than helpless frame of mind that allowed me to engage more actively and affectively
with the possibilities of cultural innovation. Here the cycle married with Peschl’s
(2007) notion of U-theory, but offered a more practical set of steps to follow, bridging
the epistemological and methodological dimensions of study. The four stages of
Slaughter’s cycle (2004) direct attention towards internal change, rather than
technical or environmental change, and associated ‘recovery of meaning’. The first
stage involves ‘breaking down meanings’ and can encompass a wide range of
phenomena, but in essence suggests focus on my own understandings, concepts,
values and agreements that once served to support social interaction but which now,
for one reason or another, have become problematic. Attention to issues of power
and my own attachments to, and discourses of sustainability and curriculum was
important, particularly in the position of challenge that tried to be open to indifference
and alternatives. Nearly all new ideas encounter ‘disinterest or resistance’
130
(Slaughter, 2004:7) which for the author are inevitable, ‘[c]onflicts arise for many
reasons. If new ideas are pursued with skill and vigour then conflicts are usually
inevitable’ (Slaughter, 2004: 8). If change is perceived as a threat to organisational
structures and personal interests, then an adversarial response is more likely.
However, conflict can also be seen as positive, as aspect of democratic education
that involves ‘argument, debate and dissent’ (Davies, 2011: 1). Again this was
something I was attendant to both in terms of analysis and personal reflexivity.
Recognition that conflicts might not be resolved was countered somewhat by
colleague’s willingness to engage with the process. The final stage suggested by
Iversen involves ‘selective legitimation’ tentative judgement, without guarantee of
success or improvement, resembling Peschl’s (2007) ideas and Caldwell’s (2007)
focus on decentred agency.
In many ways I struggled with how a postmodern/poststructural approach to
research, which I felt could respect diversity and decentre self in the process, could
focus on personal agency and a resource for more sustainable change. Earlier
theories and questions associated with D/discourses of agency (Emirbayer and
Mische, 1998; Ahearn, 2001; Biesta and Tedder, 2006; Sen, 2007) danced with me
in this phase of analysis alongside notions of reflexive transformation and decentring
(Mezirow, 2000; Slaughter, 2004; Biesta, 2005; Peschl, 2007). Caldwell’s (2007)
notion of decentred agency explicated through his review and development of
Foucault’s theories, discussed earlier, proved particularly useful alongside Slaughter
in consideration of key questions around which such an approach could centre
In this reflexive approach I would need to systematically explore four key questions
according to Caldwell (ibid.):
131
• How can intentional, future-oriented action and forms of discourse
be mediated through practice?
• How can ‘knowledges’ rather than discourses of power/knowledge
provide a basis of self-knowledge and self-creation, of agency and
change?
• Can the notion of embodied agency include an exploration of an
ideal of autonomy and its ethical limits?
• How can self-reflexivity be linked to a positive object of self-
knowledge or self-formation that defines new possibilities of
identity and moral-political action rather than a negative image of
self-subjugation?
The use of analytic and reflexive memos which captured some of my ‘internal
conversations’ (Bakhtin, 1981; Gibbs, 2002; Charmaz, 2006; Saldaña, 2009; Claxton,
2013) proved important in enabling and maintaining focus [particularly useful given
breaks in the process], developing analysis and writing up my thesis. For Saldaña,
(2009:32):
The purpose of analytic memo writing is to document and reflect on: your coding process and code choices; how the process of inquiry is taking shape: and the emergent patterns, categories and subcategories, themes, and concepts in your data
Memos can help focus on the process of analysis, forming reflexive tools through
which we can engage more actively in developing ‘theories’. While often used in
grounded theory approaches (Charmaz, 2006), they are seen as useful in a range of
qualitative research, forming a prompt to confront and challenge personal
assumptions, highlighting developments, and maintaining momentum. Memos for
Gibbs (2002: 88-89) can capture new ideas for coding, hunches and conjectures,
integrative and comparative discussion, questions of quality of the data and analytic
framework, times of puzzlement and surprise and in raising general themes or
metaphors. For Dey (1993 cited in Saldaña, 2009: 33) this should be a creative
activity, allowing for engagement with the data that emphasises a process of
132
complexity and uncertainty but from which clarity in analysis emerges as the
research progresses. While perhaps less explicit in my writing of research, this tool
proved key in linking some of the complexities of inquiry.
In conclusion this chapter has outlined key debates that situate my own approach
and methods utilised in order the engage in empirical study of HE curriculum,
sustainability and agency in processes of discursive socio-cultural stability and
change. Through a range of objectifying and reflexive techniques I was able to move
from a normative concern for sustainability in curriculum development to empirical
analysis of institutional D/discourses. This enabled personal reconstructions of the
data which could both generate knowledge of the topics and of D/discourse analysis
as a tool in qualitative empirical research. The methodological novelty inherent in
this study is I feel the major contribution made by this thesis, drawing together and
explicating in some detail the process itself as I will continue to discuss in the
penultimate chapter featuring my data analysis and discussion that now follows.
133
Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Discussion
This penultimate chapter of my thesis highlights how attention to different lenses of
D/discourse analysis (Alvesson and Kärreman, 2000) in my own professional context
has enabled me to attend to my questions and the process of empirical and reflexive
inquiry. The notion of challenge that accompanied my research was intellectual,
practical and existential where a focus on the cultural and discursive ‘beat’
(Meadows, 2001; Alkire, 2008) of my organisation through attention to D/discourses
of curriculum, sustainability and agency was progressed. My research involved
something of an epistemic dance (Peschl, 2007) with the data where different
methods and approaches to analysis maintained a sense of movement with the
words and between possible constructions, as discussed in Chapter 3. I was
something of a ‘bricoleur’ in the process (Denzin and Lincoln, 2011:4), adopting
interpretative, narrative, theoretical and political positions using ‘whatever strategies,
methods, and empirical tools’ I came across. This may challenge notions of quality
although for me it seemed entirely appropriate in the context of risk and reflexive
modernity and with a focus on sustainability and agency in curriculum development
all of which were taken as ‘floating signifiers’ filled with different meanings. As such
my approach has produced something of a montage, a narrative that itself has
personal, relational, spatial and temporal dimensions and discursive qualities. In
brief, the initial section of this chapter involves textual analysis and discussion of
‘official’ documents as Discourse, followed by analysis and discussion of the
discourses circulating in ‘unofficial’ talk. The final section will offer a narrative of the
process through a personal reflexive lens.
134
Strategic Documentary Analysis: Learning and Teaching Strategies 2005
-2009 and 2010 – 2014
While there had been a specific Curriculum Strategy for 2008-2012, this was not
accessible for analysis, and without a current Curriculum Strategy, the Learning and
Teaching Strategies for 2005-2009 [LT1] and 2010-2014 [LT2] were seen as the best
available texts that could offer useful insights into HE curriculum D/discourse in my
own professional context. Strategic documents were considered useful as an initial
point of entry into analysis, offering notions of stability (Lincoln and Guba, 1985),
more regulated ways of speaking and writing, in which change could be inscribed
through measures of deconstruction and comparison (Feldman, 1995; Jørgensen
and Phillips, 2002). At the same time, there was potential to distance myself from
the data, an approach that felt more comfortable ethically and politically as discussed
earlier. According to Jørgensen and Phillips (2002: 149):
Comparison is a strategy which is well-suited to facilitating the process by which analysts distance themselves from their material. The process of distancing is important as one of the aims of discourse analysis is to identify naturalised, taken-for-granted assumptions in the empirical material and this can be difficult if one shares those assumptions oneself.
Engagement with the Learning and Teaching Strategies involved multiple readings
and coding in a process of intuitive fracturing of the data (Feldman, 1995), following
lexical and linguistic changes of key words and phrases (Fairclough, 2001; Sylvestre
et al, 2013; Iverson, 2014). This sat alongside fuller rhetorical readings involving ‘big
scoops’ of language as text (Quinn, 2009), where ‘orders of discourse’ (Fairclough,
1995; Hajer, 1995) and ‘structure and framing’ (Sylvestre et al, 2013) were key
heuristic tools. I was also influenced here by Iversen’s (2014) Iterative Curriculum
135
Discourse Analysis approach in identification of key nodes, used differently over
time.
While risk, sustainability and agency as reflexive modernity set a theoretical context
and backdrop for discussion of curriculum, and much of this was achieved via review
of literature, key nodes and discursive fillings were essentially grounded in my
reading of the documents, adding to the sense of contextualisation of data. After
first reading both documents in the summer of 2012, spontaneous codes and
comments were tabulated in a word document and saved to aid further coding,
analysis and reflexivity in the process, proving particularly useful as a reflexive tool
given my break in my studies. Fresh, uncoded copies of the documents were used
in the main phase of analysis [summer 2013 – summer 2014] as I tried to focus on
the texts in different ways. Fairclough’s (1995, 2003) notion of ‘orders of discourse’,
and Hajer’s (1995) ‘discursive orders’ was useful here, in that they ‘…can be seen as
one domain of potential cultural hegemony, with dominant groups struggling to assert
and maintain particular structuring within and between them.’ (Fairclough 1995: 56),
and in and through which ‘subjects are ideologically positioned’. Strategies through
this lens were seen as Discourse that works to [re]produce a particular ‘ideological’
position (Fairclough, 1992; Alvesson and Kärreman, 2000) involving ‘pared down
visions’ (Sylvestre et al, 2013) or ‘ideal types’ (Fairclough, 1992) of language in use.
Changing Identity Narratives
On first reading of the documents, even prior to deconstructive analysis, I was
immediately struck by a changing narrative framing in the documents as shown
below. Following this narrative of change I looked at each strategy in turn, and then
through a comparative lens (Jørgensen and Phillips, 2002) as will be discussed.
136
The opening statements of the Strategies moved from:
‘We will be the Community University College of the South West, providing high quality, holistic, enabling and supportive learning, teaching and research opportunities to meet the needs of individuals, groups, the region and beyond’ (LT1).
To:
‘As a high quality and vibrant higher education institution with a strong community focus, providing learning and opportunity for local, regional, national and international markets our mission is to provide ‘learning for life’ (LT2).
Learning and Teaching Strategy 2005 – 2009 (LT1)
The first line of the first Strategy (LT1) suggested, on first and subsequent readings,
a potential deficit, postmodern, or reflexive narrative and framing of institutional
identity, as one in the process of formation. This was suggested by inclusion of a
future orientation where ‘we will be’, that we were ‘aim[ing] for excellence in learning
and teaching’, working at gaining and maintaining the highest levels of external
confidence in our quality of provision……’ a statement drawn from the relating
institutional Strategic Plan at the time. There was an ongoing emphasis on
developing potential, or human capital dependent on your own discourse, so as to
achieve ‘excellence in learning and teaching’, developing technologically with the
creation of a ‘modern information infrastructure’, further development of the ‘high
quality campus estate’, and ‘development and implementation’ of a ‘sustainable
research strategy relevant to UC academic values and priorities’. This presented a
modern development Discourse (Crush, 1995; Cornwall, 2010; Rist, 2010), where
with sufficient inputs of physical, technological and human capital we would improve
and achieve excellence. Looking to the structure of this storyline, it was suggested
that once this development had occurred we would be able to provide ‘high quality,
137
holistic, enabling and supportive learning, teaching and research opportunities to
meet the needs of individuals, groups, the region and beyond’. This goal could also
fit discursively within a more reformist sustainable development Discourse, favouring
a language of holism, enabling, and meeting needs from local to global. The implied
student-centred focus was also, in suggestions of a ‘sustainable research strategy
relevant to UC academic values and priorities’ perhaps one that might allow for, or
have an expectation of a measure of academic autonomy in curriculum development.
At the same time it could be dualistically read in more functionalist terms that suggest
a determined narrative with a fixed point to be reached and in which a particular set
of institutional values and goals are key and concensual. This might present a
situation where students and staff would learn in hierarchical accordance with these
externally imposed if implied ideas of the good. The rhetorical nature of such calls
did not go unnoticed, but neither did the ease of interpretation I was noticing.
Suspending my own ‘explanations’ felt necessary, but as they continued I used
memos to bring to articulate the dance as will be discussed.
The softness and uncertainty of much of the language of education and curriculum at
the outset of LT1 could contribute to a lack of belief or confidence in this organisation
in the present. Despite a long history of educational and social purpose, it was a
Discourse that I considered as suggestive of reflexive modernity at an institutional
level, where identity was under ongoing reformulation, and which formed the
discursive ‘shifting sands’ of my professional practice. As LT1 progressed the
narrative shifted to a market oriented, technical rational genre of Discourse (Beck,
1998; Fairclough, 2001; Elliott, 2002), of employment and skills to be supported by
investment in and development of a technological infrastructure and through careful
management systems. The language of certainty that we would reach our goals,
138
was persuasive, if unintentionally, with the effect of a sense of comfort, a convincing
tale in the reading of it, in some ways overwhelming the earlier reformist and future
oriented Discourse of an unfinished project. The technical language of markets and
the modern are rhetorically louder, more positive and forceful and hence outweigh
alternatives in some ways regardless of the message. I wondered if, however, I was
reading too much into the data, that my own analytical ‘habits of mind’ might be
saying more than the words on the page.
Learning and Teaching Strategy 2010-2014 (LT2)
The second Learning and Teaching Strategy [LT2] sounded more confident in the
storyline of the newly formed University College as it was by this time of writing. The
confidence and hence persuasiveness of language use was achieved in part
because of the lexical constitution of economic and managerial speak in framing the
document (Sylvestre et al, 2013). There was a firmer sense of institutional identity
and authority expressed with claims at the outset of global reach by an institution
which had reached its own goals and achieved its identity implying concensus.
Curriculum expressions of humanism and futurity through use of the phrase ‘learning
for life’ may have implied a potentially more ‘sustainable’ orientation although later
this was changed to the concept of ‘lifelong learning’ attendant to market oriented
curriculum models and development of human capital that are considered
unsustainable (Fien, 1993; Selby, 1999, 2005; Sterling, 2001). The economic
purpose as a narrative framing device was evident with a direct mention of markets
in the first sentence which when linked to expressions of global reach accentuated
this connection to the knowledge economy (Fairclough, 2001; Blewitt, 2004). Here
the UC is presented as a place with strong educational, infrastructural and social
139
capital, although interestingly human capital was still discoursed as lacking,
positioning academics perhaps as not having used their autonomy or agency wisely
in response to the directions set out in LT1. We had the technology, and needed
now to ‘ensure accurate and accessible information and resources to support student
learning’ which alluded to the importance of management, quality assurance. Quality
was linked strongly to technological capital, which in the context of risk could raise
concerns about ‘the shadow side’ of modern ideas of development and progress
(Beck, 1992; Adam and van Loon, 2000:12) drawing attention to my socio-cultural
and institutional focus if rather loosely to conceptions of risk society.
There remained a potential deficit discourse in LT2, and here – again - staff rather
than the institution were positioned as in need of change, to develop and extend
curricula ‘to reflect contemporary disciplinary developments’ in scholarship and
research rather than challenge them; to develop ‘innovative approaches’ in use of the
technology where creativity and risk sprang to mind simultaneously; to develop and
maintain a curriculum which could be ‘delivered in more flexible ways’ that would
‘meet the needs of a changing student cohort’, and to ‘extend expertise’. In its
positioning effects, the deficit Discourse of staff against notions of expertise drew my
attention to notions of ‘risk culture’ (Lash, 2000), where institutional ‘techno-economic
decisions and considerations of utility’ might promote further risks and
unsustainability (Beck, 1992b:98). In this I noted a sense of ease in explanation
which did not seem to be as grounded in the data as it needed to be if I was to avoid
falling back into an interpretive normative position in relation to the data and my
colleagues that was of such concern. In the spirit of ongoing challenge the
documents were reviewed with analysis grounded more linguistically in the text itself,
140
looking through lenses of framing and structure (Keller, 2013; Sylvestre et al, 2013).
An example of this analysis can be found in Appendix 1.
Focusing on lexical shifts and in the more recent strategy supported narrative
reading, which in many ways affirmed my more intuitive approach and led to a
greater sense of methodological confidence in the process, although this remained
a fragile sense of security. In framing LT2 and supported by a structure that
emphasised increased inclusion of a market oriented and managerial speak noted
above a supply-oriented educational order of Discourse was inscribed into the data.
This Discourse stressed curriculum as a deliverable product that would be
‘provided’, with this word used four times more frequently in the second strategy,
suggesting strong modality. This was also furthered by the general increased use of
verbs emphasising educational provision aimed at ‘preparing students for their
future employment’ [which in LT1 read more broadly as ‘future challenges’] through
‘professional and inter-professional training’, with employment linked to acquisition
of a range of ‘skills’. Inclusion of the word ‘training’ when linked to ‘skills’ and
‘employability’ presented a relatively fixed, stable economic purpose for Learning
and Teaching in this strategy.
This was further supported, for example, with the inclusion of reworked text from
the Curriculum Strategy 2008 -12, suggesting a longer discursive history, and
images of the hegemonic ‘normal birth’ of risk (Beck, 1992) sprang to mind. As
noted I could not access this document to look more closely at interdiscursive links.
The reference made included the goal of ‘developing and maintaining a sustainable
curriculum which can be “delivered in flexible ways” and attract additional income
streams (including via employer engagements)’. I would seem only “delivered in
flexible ways” came from the Curriculum Strategy document and this substantive re-
141
articulation had, therefore, reinforced the economic emphasis of this Discourse.
This potentially could marginalise broader social and environmental discursive
orders and those who coalesce with them. My normative bias here was embodied
again involving a sense of concern that institutionally we were not rising to the
challenges of our risky and unsustainable times. In this as earlier I felt myself
losing a more subtle form of realism, drifting to more critical discourse analytic
shores and this ‘habit of mind’ warranted ongoing consideration. My approach
however seemed to unsettle and diminish opportunities for drawing easy analyses,
judgements or ‘conclusions’.
Revisiting Texts
Returning to the analysis of texts, two key strategic aims from LT1 were seen to
offer further potential for comparison, and I began to sense my position as bricoleur
in the process (Denzin and Lincoln, 2011) following leads rather than taking a clear
path in data engagement and analysis. There were a number of occasions when
my conceptualisation of the stability of formal publically available texts was
challenged through the process of analysis but also through the nature of change
itself. Institutional strategies are living documents, under seemingly endless
revision and removal from the discursive flow, and hence my approach did not
seem out of step. While I had incomplete data sets for comparison of ‘curriculum’
aims, it was considered useful to compare what was publically available, and this
seemed permissible in a post structural, constructionist stance. An example of this
analysis is contained in Appendix 2.
Here framing and structure was suggestive of a different potential reading personally
validating the time and effort spent with this data. The curriculum Discourses in the
142
Strategies had essentially been inverted rather than radically changed, and it was
only in ascription of ‘orders’ and ‘framing’ as linked to meaning or signification that
suggestions of institutional identity, consensus and purpose could be upheld.
The structure of LT2 had undergone a shift with the key aim of employability moving
up the ‘ranking’ changing places with facilities, which as the story told, had been
developed. The emphasis was still third however after notions of planned curriculum
suggesting a dominant curriculum model as will be discussed, and of inclusion,
highlighting social purpose (Singh and Little, 2011). In terms of inclusion this
articulation as a key emphasis in terms of the structure of the document could be
linked to our legal responsibilities coalescing with an institutional Discourse of social
purpose, as noted we have a long history of this and a higher than average
proportion of ‘non-traditional’ students. In this case it might also be suggested that in
the face of dominant Discourses of the market this was an organisational attempt to
hold on to its tradition and purpose in the face of wider discursive forces. A new
mention of enterprise activities was noted, again emphasising market interactions in
LT2, although subsequent focus on engagement with public and third sector
organisations was indicative of a Discourse not necessarily aimed at private sector
involvement (King, 2011). At a time of public and third sector funding cuts this
seemed to lie in tension with the income generation emphasis noted potentially
undermining the economic sustainability of the organisation.
Tensions between suggested links and D/discourses of knowledge, expertise and
academic autonomy in curriculum development could also follow, weakening our
position and prompting further institutional reflexivity (Singh and Little, 2011). The
143
accent was on growing provision, and vocational curricula directed at these sectors
as important to the Key Strategic aim of ‘Ensuring sustainable futures’ where
essentially this was framed in terms of sustainable growth (Hatzius, 1996; Blewitt,
2004) and seemed to place this narrative on the horizons of development and
modernity at odds with sustainability. Using Dryzec’s (1997, 2005) model
highlighted ongoing room for doubt. While this could be considered to be indicative of
a ‘problem solving’ Discourse emphasising acceptance of issues to be managed, it
could also be read as a ‘sustainability’ Discourse, muted in critique of industrialism
while articulating potential for change. In some ways I noted neither seemed
attractive in this light. In this account, academic staff were positioned to hold or
diminish this potential, alluding to a sense of autonomy and agency, although I was
not convinced.
The ‘meaning’ however, and in some ways I was still searching for one, remained
unclear and more a matter of interpretation than discursive evidence it seemed. The
inclusion of point 5 in LT2 stressing the integration of ESD into the curriculum, with
an emphasis on transformative learning, could be seen as a profound and positive
shift for a more sustainability oriented interpretation. This focus was introduced as a
result of our involvement in HEA Green Academy II 2013- 2014, and readers not
involved may not know this, changing their reading of the text. It struck me that while
considered a major triumph at the time suddenly this seemed discursively ‘out of
place’, sitting in an essentially antagonistic relationship to the rest of the text, but not
completely. The inclusion in the structure of more reformist articulations of
sustainable development and sustainability dancing pedagogically with an emphasis
on transformative learning were evident if one set aside framing. In LT1 the social
emphasis was part of the framing of the document and might seem to dominate this
144
discursive text but only if one set aside the structure. The pedagogical emphasis on
transformative learning offered a glimmer of hope, although added new contested
words to the institutional lexicon that needed filling.
I recognised a tension between my hopes and readings to date. In looking hopefully
for alternatives I kept inventing patterns. My first thought was that I was perhaps
failing to do the analysis ‘correctly’, or ‘missing the point’ as despite the objectifying
techniques used in the process so much still seemed to be personal. Objectivity in
comparison might distance but it did not necessarily seem to de-centre self as
interpreter, however with only two documents to compare perhaps I was expecting
too much of the data. I wondered at the time if this was the nature of ‘presencing’
(Peschl, 2007; Biesta, 2005) of ‘decentred agency’ (Caldwell, 2007), that danced
back to the existential self in a process of reflexive reconstruction and re-
identification, although Beck (1994) might challenge this view. My ongoing
uncertainty was easily translated into a sense of epistemic humility, and maintained
my interest in the process despite the time commitment and embodiments it involved.
Taking Sylvestre et al’s (2013) attention to structure, I looked again with a different
lens. An example of coding is contained in Appendix 3.
While LT2 had rearticulated LT1 to significant degree, contradicting to some extent
my initial reading, levels of diversity and complexity within the texts challenged
singular readings as noted, and the deconstruction of texts seemed to confound
rather than enhance notions of power and positioning within them. Confinement to
the data without recognition of the theoretical and existential context of the research
highlighted how I might be losing sight of a need to take a stand, perhaps, but
through this epistemic dance, where I stood, for better or worse, was being brought
to view. In many ways this did not seem to go beyond my ‘natural’ tendencies
145
towards a reflective approach, but attention to measures of empirical rigour offered a
greater sense of both confusion and clarity.
I was also struck through grounded attention to the data by the naturalisation of key
phrases and metaphors in the texts, a number of cultural ‘blindspots’ in my own
readings that created new sites of potential meaning making. It was not so much I
had not seen the words, but had filled them with meaning subconsciously
perpetuating the taken for granted ‘common sense’ ways of speaking included within
them. As noted Billig suggests that ‘people use complex and frequently contradictory
patterns of talk’ (Billig, 1991:15) something I had noted in analysis to date and in
some ways this was a source of comfort.
My next engagement with the texts involved further emphasis linked to Laclau and
Mouffe’s (1985; Jørgensen and Phillips, 2002; Iversen, 2014) notions of nodal points
and chains of meaning, significance and difference, in another attempt to confirm or
challenge previous readings through triangulation. Here I paid attention to the
specific terms ‘learning’ and ‘teaching’ looking at the chains of meaning that were
‘crystallized’ around them. In this I was attempting to shift position from a focus on
orders of discourse to one of subjective positioning noted by Hajer (1995; Harré and
Gillett, 1994; Keller, 2013), although this subjectivity was partially suspended given
the strategic emphasis learning and teaching rather than subjects as learners or
teachers, and reflexively by my own increasing poststructural doubt about any
potential ‘findings’.
Choosing ‘Learning’ as a nodal point and following this word through each document
in terms of attendant words and phrasing I developed another reading of the data,
highlighting a suggested web of meaning, and also changes over time. Chains of
146
equivalence and difference noted in this phase of analysis are highlighted in
Appendix 4. Several things struck me here. The first was the introduction in LT2 to
‘vocational learning’ and ‘professional learning and training’, whereas in LT1 the
focus was on ‘employability’, and a ‘competitive employment market’, again
challenging my earlier readings and notions of framing. Vocationalism potentially
pays more attention to professional D/discourses of ethics and personal values and
notions of calling (Schön, 1989) and as such suggests opportunities within curriculum
for student agency. Alongside this there was a move from ‘objective’ academic
learning in LTI [which for me seemed in tension with the framing of a holistic
approach], to ‘intellectually challenging advanced scholarship’ in LT2 which could
resonate breadth, holistic interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary and even perhaps
transformative approaches also noted in relation to ESD and sustainability. LT2 did
incorporate a new articulation of ‘expertise’ that could link to the ‘objective’ approach
noted in LT1, maintaining the importance of the knowledge function of HE suggested
by Sousa (2011) and Singh and Little (2011) in Chapter 2. The mention of ‘training’
already noted in LT2 might be particularly challenging to this Discourse of academic
expertise however drawing in new partners and stakeholders in curriculum
development and weakening our role in knowledge production. In LT2, the emphasis
on having access to accurate information, as we now had the technology, might
certainly permit a reading aligned more closely to a managerial/quality assurance
genre that is not clearly articulated in LT1, where there were still attempts to gain
status in this regard noted in the narrative above. The emphasis in LT2 and clearer
articulation of skills would also support the employability and quality assurance
emphasis, although of course the latter is a primary function of such Strategies, and
LT2 did come in the same year as the Browne Review (2010) and may have been
147
anticipatory of it. The Browne Review (2010) ‘Securing a Sustainable Future for
Higher Education’ involved a Discourse of sustainable growth for the sector although
sought to ‘balance the level of participation, the quality of teaching and the
sustainability of funding; [where] changing one component has an impact on the
others’ and where ‘[s]ustaining income – or raising it – depends on improving quality,
access and student experience’ (Browne, 2010:10).
In terms of learners there was limited mention of students and much of my analysis
linked to literature regarding curriculum constructions of knowledge and power where
students were positioned through particular curriculum models. The emphasis on
‘provision’ of ‘high quality learning opportunities’ offered through development of
technology, management systems and developing teacher’s competencies would
seem not to challenge and indeed be inscribed with potential maintenance of
‘vocational/neoclassical’ (Kemmis et al, 1983) ‘functionalist’ (Askew and Carnell,
1998) and ‘global competitive’ (Selby, 1999, 2005) curriculum models featuring
designed and specified curriculum content and pedagogies, and outcomes based
approaches where students could be viewed as ‘malleable objects’ (Kelly, 1989:62;
McKernan, 2008). ‘Appropriate knowledge’ was expressed in similar terms,
bolstered by intertextual suggestions of academic-rational models where scientific
objectivity and expertise, directed towards ‘advanced scholarship’ and ‘employability’,
which for many (Huckle, 1999, 2006; Sterling, 2001; Thomas, 2005; Bracher, 2006;
McKernan, 2008) including myself are seen to maintain the hegemonic status quo
and thwart opportunities for sustainability or something better.
The language of liberal progressivism is also evident here, reinforcing my reading
through Dryzec’s lenses, of more reformist, client-centred, learner-centred models
148
(Kemmis et al, 1983; Jickling, 2003; Gough and Scott, 2007; Selby, 2005; Askew and
Carnell, 1998) with articulations of intellectual challenge and transformation in LT2.
This sits on the margin of a stronger web of meaning already noted, and in itself
would challenge master signifiers and political, social and environmental purposes
for education thus potentially failing by omission (Huckle, 2008). Socially critical and
postmodern curriculum models are certainly noticeable in their absence from or
silence within this Discourse. The alignment of these models with more sustainability
oriented or radical curriculum models (Bracher, 2006) I expected to compound a
sense of pessimism for more positive curriculum change. I was somewhat surprised
in my reflex, where as I moved through this part of the analytic process, my dance
away from both normative and pragmatic positions seemed to enable a sense of
freedom, or was this denial?
A similar exercise was progressed in terms of teaching as a nodal point, although
signification was far less evident within the documents, with a less engaged and
active lexicon attached to this position, perhaps indicative of the emphasis on the
learner in our own context and wider contemporary Discourses of HE (Biesta, 2005),
or linked to the maintained or decreasing autonomy of teachers in the face of
changing policy Discourse, or some other reasons. I did express at the time my
sense of the irony of strategies focused on learning and teaching that were limited in
their emphasis on learners and teachers! My initial reading of the documents using
the nodal point teaching proved particularly interesting and somewhat playful,
involving a process of substitution, accentuation and exaggeration of meaning which
Jørgensen and Phillips (2002) suggest hold potential in analysis for drawing out
positions. Exaggerating the texts led me to construct a brief descriptor of the
149
expectations of a lecturer in this HE context as drawn from LT1 and LT2 and
included in Appendix 5.
Positionings inscribed in the data stressed the discourses of modernity, development
as technologically and market driven growth, awareness and ensured management
of customer satisfaction, and repeat business perhaps says more about my own
bases for interpretation and residual angst. For while my playful engagement with
critique prompted a momentary sense of victory over a mythical ‘system’ and
invisible ‘others’, engaging in this method of analysis further constructed the very
Discourse I hoped to change. While the webs of meaning linked to discursive
constructions of teaching were themselves prone to the benign neglect of
subjectivity, they could be constructed as representative of an oppressive and
hegemonic discourse, although in part I had created it through the internalisation of
the illusion and its re-articulation. In this I felt I was creating my own hegemonic
cage, and I danced away.
Education as a nodal point was surprisingly absent within the Learning and Teaching
Strategies. For Biesta this discursive shift is challenged as a problematic omission
and we need ‘to re-invent a language for education, a language that is responsive to
the theoretical and practical challenges we are faced with today’ (Biesta, 2002 cited
in Biesta, 2005: 66). Emphasis on teachers ‘supporting or facilitating learning’,
providing ‘opportunities’ and ‘experiences’ has modern and postmodern connections
according to the author that challenge relationships and agency. An emphasis on
education as a product to be consumed, offering value for money, that can be
provided, delivered flexibly and in response to student needs, experience and
consumer rights echoes within my analysis and his concerns. This educational
silence potentially precludes issues and discussions of purpose beyond student
150
needs and experience feeding into and dependent on particular measurement
mechanisms – the National Student Survey springs to mind here. This for Biesta
(ibid:59), and I feel my research has in some way highlighted this point, reduces
teaching to largely managerial and technical genres of discourse, limiting the ‘more
important questions about the content and purpose of education’ except when they
meet learners as consumer’s needs for easy, attractive and exciting experiences.
Social purpose in this both inflates the student-centred D/discourse and in this
relegates other, for example environmental concerns, to the linguistic margins.
My final analysis of the Learning and Teaching Strategies looked at the lexicon of
sustainability and curriculum (Sterling, 2010, 2011, 2013; Tilbury, 2011). This
represented an effort to triangulate other dimensions of analysis, as another way of
revisioning rather than confirming findings in a more realist sense. There was also a
measure of linguistic evaluation, a kind of audit (Ryan, 2011) that might highlight
further discursive opportunities and constraints for articulating and enacting
sustainability. Again this involved a simple focus on specific words to see the extent
to which the ‘language’ of sustainability was evident (Fairclough, 2003). My findings
can be found in Appendix 6. Linguistically, the term sustainability was used four
times more frequently in LT2, something that was not ‘seen’ in previous readings.
Conceptually the Strategies show no inclusions of sustainability curriculum keywords
beyond ‘needs’, although pedagogically there was greater alignment perhaps. While
this comparison was crude, it highlighted a general shift from ‘experiential, critical
and holistic learning’ to ‘applied and practical learning’, further supporting earlier
analysis that highlighted a discursive shift in curriculum to marketable skills, although
both applied and practical learning are a feature of some curriculum models and
pedagogical approaches to sustainability.
151
At this level of analysis my textual analytic approaches to date had further muddied
the waters of my own ‘swampy lowland’ of curriculum Discourse rather than clarified
them. While the nature of Discourse and the naturalisation of hegemony may tend to
‘position’ knowledge, people and education, hegemonic Discourses clearly render
themselves contestable (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985) and may not necessarily be seen
as entirely negative. As Webb et al note (2002: 38; Karol and Gale, 2004) ‘there is
nothing natural or essential about the values we hold, the desires we pursue, or the
practices in which we engage’ with are themselves constructed in part through
linguistic turns.
Ongoing challenges enabled a sense of growing confidence in terms of analysis, and
I became increasingly interested rather than concerned about what each new
engagement with the data would bring. In losing my sense of certainty, I felt more
open to the learning process and in some ways more in charge of it. With this in
mind I moved to analysis of my own articulations of institutional Discourse. While I
do not contribute significantly to externally facing texts, I had taken a programme
through validation, and thought attention to my own framing and structure, modality,
and nominalisation could be applied as a reflexive prompt in this research. Despite
my assumed passion, I was surprised at what I ‘saw’, in that what I had envisaged as
linking strongly to a particular view of sustainability lacked discursive ‘substance’ and
reflected a good deal of the patterning observed in previous documents, as shown in
Appendix 7.
Here, my own framing of curriculum, in the context of sustainability, placed initial
emphasis on academic challenge, intellectual rigour, and skills and competencies
relevant for employability, suggesting a traditional instructivist, market oriented
curriculum and learning relationships. Subsequent mention of professionalism, in
152
this framing links more to discourse of employability and engagement in markets
supported by later emphasis on a knowledge economy. The use of the word
‘specifically’ might suggest the subsequent statement to be the ‘real’ intention of
curriculum noted in other texts, involving conceptual, epistemological and critical
reflexive engagement and a later mention of active inquiry might further support this,
suggestive of alignment to a more reformist approach to curriculum but still open to
interpretation. Mention of a ‘triple bottom line’ makes intertextual links to SD which
given its relationship with ‘lifelong learning’ suggests further alignment with
declarations and curriculum discourses associated with ESD (UNESCO, 2002),
although as Sylvestre et al (2013) noted in the broader policy context these too were
taking on the language of the market. My own D/discourse also sits in direct
relationship to the knowledge economy genres and therefore the message is likely to
be equally ambiguous and problematic. Weak modality and nominalisation are
evident here too, with a curriculum that ‘aims to’ and the ‘potential’ value of
education, followed by a shift in deontic modality between my own articulated ‘aim’ to
provide learning to students who ‘will’ learn. By making reference to work abroad,
linked to mention of the knowledge economy, I could be accused of possessing
colonising tendencies that are individual, cultural, spatial and temporal, (Selby, 2004;
Bracher, 2006), and the thought did and still does cross my mind.
I expected more of self, given my level of interest in and association of my
professional and personal identity with the concept of sustainability. Perhaps, I was
less radical and postmodern in my thinking that I had led myself to believe, or less
centred in my engagement with the concept and associated educational curriculum
discursively. Or was it just that my writing had been ill considered, or captured and
constrained by the Discourse in which it circulated (Trowler, 2001; Fairclough, 2001).
153
It would seem perhaps that my own discursive constructions were merely modern
hegemonic models of academia, perpetuating curriculum models that I felt needed to
change in terms of unsustainability, with implications ‘individually (in terms of
identity), socially (in terms of social construction) and politically (in terms of the
distribution of power)’ (Trowler, 2001: 184).
In many ways however this did not marry to my experience of educational
approaches or relationships, and in this I wondered if it was more a case of linguistic
lag, where changes in practice precede our ability to speak of it in all its complexity
(Harré et al, 1999). Or perhaps while I had enacted the language of the market and
associated curricula, I had not inculcated it. Fairclough (2001:7) suggests:
A new discourse may come into an institution or organisation without being enacted or inculcated. It may be enacted, yet never be fully inculcated. Examples abound. For instance, managerial discourses have been quite extensively enacted within British universities (for instance as procedures of staff appraisal, including a new genre of appraisal interview), yet arguably the extent of inculcation is very limited, most academics do not own these management discourses. We have to consider the conditions of possibility for, and the constraints upon, the dialectics of discourse in particular cases.
Was I looking for an excuse to nominalise my behaviour? I found in this moment, a
sense of sharing with colleagues and others, an awareness I thought I already had
but again could not necessarily express, that an overemphasis on what people write
and say as representative of what is and who they are is both projective, divisive and
potentially illusory. While I had ‘read’ widely [texts and experiences], I had also ‘read
into’ language in a way that was itself a limiting basis for judgement, trust and
possible dialogue. I felt I could do something to change this.
There had been changes made to my original writing, a reminder that texts are living
documents and this offered a further opportunity for comparison. In this
154
rearticulation, found in Appendix 8, there was a shift from a political/normative
discourse [with attendant critique noted] to more student centred one (Askew and
Carnell, 1998). More interestingly perhaps was that this change was also noted in
the greater diversity of assessment offered in the revised curriculum, as highlighted
in Appendix 9. Links from D/discourse to action were made apparent in this a source
of further personal concern and challenge. The new potential alignment to a more
constructivist pedagogical approach was something I could now choose to make
more real in light of this discomfort however. I was also aware of potential criticisms
of an emphasis on the learner (Kemmis et al, 1983; Askew and Carnell, 1998;
Jickling, 2003; Biesta, 2005; Scott and Gough, 2007) although these changes still
seemed something of an improvement on my own curriculum D/discourse. My own
mention of ‘critical engagement with ways of knowing’ perhaps highlights my
inculcation of socially critical and postmodern curriculum discourses (Kemmis et al,
1983; Fien, 1993; Askew and Carnell, 1998; Carr and Kemmis, 1985) but not their
enactment! I could however do something about this.
What struck me most, and again, at this stage of analysis was that while the shift to a
market-oriented education policy Discourse within organisational and texts was
visible, these texts were polysemic, open to alternative readings and writings, which
are ‘never unambiguously accomplished, seamless totalities, but incomplete
structures with open sutures that while being established are almost already in
transition toward something else’ in a potentially endless ‘game of differences’
(Neubert, 2001:12). The issues of deconstruction that remains with the text was not
possible either in terms of my practice, or in concern for issues of knowledge/power,
positioning, sustainability and responsible agency.
155
While I could make intertextual links to wider discursive shifts (Giroux, 2004; Blewitt,
2004; Wals, 2012), however the silence of sustainability was palpable. At a national
level while economic goals were stressed, their links to environmental concerns had
also been made. The Stern Review (2006) for the UK government on the Economics
of Climate Change spoke in terms that seemed to challenge notions of sustainable
growth we were emphasising. The author suggested:
The evidence shows that ignoring climate change will eventually damage economic growth. Our actions over the coming few decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century. And it will be difficult or impossible to reverse these changes (Stern, 2006: ii).
Professor Beddington (2009) who was chief scientific advisor to the UK government
at the time, suggested an imminent ‘perfect storm’ of food shortages, water scarcity
and insufficient energy resources in 2030, linked to climate change, peak oil and
limits to growth, and resulting in public unrest, social conflict and mass migration.
More recently, the IPCC’s (2014: 1) ‘headlines’ of their latest report suggests that
both the issues and effects are uncertain, interconnected, unequally experienced but
ultimately will reflect and enhance existing inequalities and risk our future survival :
Climate change will amplify existing risks and create new risks for natural and human systems. Risks are unevenly distributed and are generally greater for disadvantaged people and communities in countries at all levels of development. Many aspects of climate change and associated impacts will continue for centuries, even if anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are stopped. The risks of abrupt or irreversible changes increase as the magnitude of the warming increases.
Critiquing LT1 and LT2 utilising Beck’s (1992, 1994, 1998, 2008; Cohen, 1997;
Elliott, 2001; Borne, 2014) theories of risk explicated in Chapter 2, it would seem that
organisational D/discourses are limited in and limiting of attention to the issues of
156
sustainability with a maintained emphasis on economic growth and curriculum
provision, technological emphasis and the inadequacies of ‘objective’ knowledge
(LT1) or ‘expertise’ (LT2). Beck’s (1998; Elliott, 2002) contention of the
nominalisation of the role of institutions in the lives of wider society and individual
agents could also be read into or made out of the texts. His suggestion that this
involves ‘organized irresponsibility’, where culpability is individualised and collectively
denied, maintained through political D/discourses of ‘industrial fatalism: faith in
progress, dependence on rationality and the rule of expert opinion’ (Elliott, 2002:
297-8; Cohen, 1997; Beck, 1998) was something I wanted to explore further. The
lack of institutional discursive change generally seemed to fly in the face of our
increasing ‘knowledge’ of environmental issues, and their increased level of
communication in a discursive knowledge society. Emphasis on the generation of
‘useful’ knowledge, production of skilled and agentic students, social inclusion and
sustainable development (Cochrane and Williams, 2010; King, 2011; Sterling, 2004;
Blewitt, 2004) may be consensual themes globally in terms of the politics of
curriculum development and nationally there was also evidence of this rhetoric. This
might support Sousa’s (2011: 54; Fairclough, 2001) suggestion that we have
embraced, institutionally at least, D/discourses of the ‘knowledge society’ that are ill-
equipped to deal with the hazards and uncertainties of the future or even the
economic needs of the present perhaps (Biesta, 2005) despite this curriculum focus.
The emphasis on employability in LT1 and vocationalism in LT2 both suggested the
need for graduate skills, and I wondered if this offered any potential discursive
openings for sustainability.
A brief overview of graduate skills at the time of LT1 highlighted that a curriculum
focus on skills can potentially support both employability and sustainability. Looking
157
at some recommended skills from the view of employers, graduates, and in ESD
policy, listed in Appendix 10, a number of similarities are evident and overlaps are
suggested. All stress the important of soft skills, communication, teamwork and
planning. An emphasis in ESD on attention to values and developing an aesthetic
appreciation for nature marks a significant addition perhaps, casting us back to the
development and environmental education emphases noted earlier in international
policy driven ESD, although again the discursive fillings of these concepts are
contested. Saito (1984) for example makes a distinction between aesthetic and
ethical appreciations of nature, as culturally and historically shaped and involving
local narratives, folklore and myth that can challenge scientific understanding.
Textual Analysis: Sustainability Statement
As noted in my original framing of my inquiry I had wondered if sustainability as a
‘nodal’ point in curriculum development potentially alienates and closes down
opportunities for other discourses, visions and action. While I have so long identified
with this concept as offering the best available paradigm for both education and life, I
was more concerned now in looking at how different genres of discourse were being
articulated. Again in something of a bricolage, my attention to data was eclectic,
following lines and dancing with data sources at they came to mind. Prior to analysis
of interview data which as noted had been collected the year before, I turned to a
recently added ‘Sustainability’ page on the University website, with a single
message. I found this particularly rich in terms of textual analysis, and highly thought
provoking. After a number of unsuccessful attempts to find the author[s] of the
statement to ask their permission to engage with this particular analysis, permission
was obtained at an institutional level.
158
This was the first real opportunity beyond the review of literature in Chapter 2 to
engage in a more ‘eco-critical discursive analysis’ (Harré et al, 1999; Blühdorn, 2002;
Stibbe, 2009) and I perceived this to provide a useful stepping stone into my focus on
interview data given the informality of the text. I include the message with original
analysis in Appendix 11 in ongoing attempts to maintain the visibility and hence
opportunities to validate my approach and the process. Looking for/at environmental
perspectives and values in the text suggested by Kellert (1993) and found in Chapter
3, was more for ease than analytical depth as I tried to find my footing in new
sources and using new analytical ‘tools’. In analysis below I have underlined my
application of Kellert’s perspectives to the text.
The tone of the message was colloquial and friendly with an initial focus on our
‘green’ campus, offering a utilitarian perspective involving a potentially exploitative
relationship with nature (Kellert, 1993; Gullone, 2000). The imagery/symbolism of
‘relaxing in the sun between lectures’ potentially features more humanistic, aesthetic
and naturalistic perspectives, of emotional and spiritual bonds with nature although
linking this with a traditional view of learning in HE diminishes this reading somewhat.
This potentially reinforces a dualistic separation between education [as work] and
campus/environment/nature [as leisure], and also a division of cultural capital
between popular and high aesthetics. An emphasis on management, measurement,
technological fixing, market interaction and consumption, and individual choice and
responsibility are stressed in what follows, and these remain unquestioned, which
potentially nominalises organisational or wider educational responsibility for problems
or in taking action (Fairclough, 2003; Porter, 2007; Sylvestre et al, 2013). Here
dominionistic and moralistic perspectives enter into the texts, associated with
management and markets thus suggesting that any issues are a matter of control of
159
nature and personal choice. Lexical shifts in the author’s use of object and
possessive pronouns reinforces a shift in responsibility or deontic modality (Sylvestre
et al, 2013) on a number of occasions. There is an emphasis in the next section on
the University’s educational role in being more green through raising awareness of
‘our users’ which furthers nominalisation, and this is preceded by the suggestion that
the University is an organisation that is aware, thus reinforcing a sense of separation
and hierarchy between University and public knowledge. This nominalisation and
weakening of modality is particularly noted when the author suggests ‘it’s not what
the institution does, it’s what we as individuals, staff and students do’.
Suggested resistance to social or political pressure and decrees presented to the
reader as an unwelcome behavioural intrusion on personal freedom may further a
liberal emphasis on individual freedom but this sits uncomfortably with the need for
organisationally managed behaviour noted with the ‘removal of bins’. This sentence
also highlights shifts in pronoun use that divides those doing something on campus
to manage the issue and staff who are unaware of the waste they produce. ‘We have
removed all waste bins from our offices and instead positioned recycle and general
waste bins all around the campus. This has the advantage of helping staff become
more aware of the waste they produce’. There was a sense at the end of the
message of potential for discursive closure to alternative visions and ‘greenspeak’
(Harré et al, 1999; Bracher, 2006).
So the answer to the question ‘How ‘green’ is #####?’ We’re greenish with a desire to be greener. And the staff and students of #####, well they’re just like the rest of society and whether they become greener will depend only partly on what we do here otherwise it’s a personal choice an individual makes after a period of reflection or it’s forced on us by societal pressure or government decree. I’m hoping for the personal choice option.
160
This Statement was considered problematic less in terms of what was said but of this
being the only accessible text via the website that linked directly to sustainability
which could deny other voices, ways of speaking and potential messages. The
contested nature of the concept is only useful if we can listen to and participate in its
contestation. The unintended or unrecognised consequences of such Discourses as
‘new dogmas’ that could themselves be unsustainable can perhaps be tackled
through more democratic dialogue (Beck, 1998:157; Blϋhdorn, 2002: Macfarlane,
2004;). I might do something about this too I felt, although was interested to consider
through analysis how such action might be perceived.
I wanted to focus more explicitly at this point on transient discourse between
discoursing subjects (Hajer, 1995). In this I held some measure of expectation that
individual and unofficial talk might offer alternative ways of speaking, and a measure
of resistance to change. Taylor (1999 cited in Wetherell et al, 2001) noted how
ongoing change in an institution can result in a sense of ambiguity and crisis, which
is reflected in how we speak about our roles, and in our responses, or not, to change,
something that resonated with my own experience I felt. Change that is seen to
threaten or devalue our academic identities is noted by the author to bring about
individual resistance and group conservatism and normalisation, where identity
politics plays out and inter-group conflicts arise noted in Chapter 2. Lane (2007)
suggests the advantages of conservativism in academic life in maintaining standards,
but also notes how it can stifle change and bring about resistance. Nikel and Reid
(2006 cited in Zeyer and Roth, 2011: 36) refer to the ‘dangers of Post Ecologism’
characterised by a recognition of the particular environmental problems but involves
a rationalisation of the situation in order to avoid the necessity of making any
fundamental changes. I had wondered what the potential barriers were to
161
sustainability as a curriculum D/discourse in my own institution, and it was in this
frame of mind that I wanted to attend to both the possibilities and constraints for
agency that colleagues articulated. I was at this point that I turned to analysis of talk.
Interview Analysis
My interviews had taken place in 2012, and I wondered whether I should begin
again. Their situation within the context of LT2, however, seemed to offer an
unexpected opportunity that was both contextualised in terms of institutional changes
of Discourse, and at the same time provided an ongoing sense of distance from the
data that felt more comfortable ethically and politically. Having [re]secured
permission to include our conversations despite this gap in time, I continued to
analysis. I had conducted initial analysis at the time of the interviews, but decided to
look afresh at the transcripts and do another ‘initial’ analysis, although the first
became a subsequent reflexive tool. Despite going into each interview with three
areas of questions, to ascertain individual narratives of the institution as a ‘culture’,
sustainability as a ‘concept’ and change as an agentic ‘possibility’, narrative analysis
was deemed problematic in terms of respondent anonymity discussed in Chapter 3.
While storylines were therefore told to me in my readings of the transcripts and as
such formed ghost positions in my dance, I focused more carefully on discursive
repertoires, within a long/range autonomous framing that refocused my gaze
(Alversson and Kärreman, 2000; Dryzek 2005; Borne, 2014; Tregidga et al, 2011).
Findings are presented as reconstructions below to maintain anonymity of speakers
as far as possible.
As noted in Chapter 2, Beck (1998, 2008) highlights the discursive melding of
academic and wider cultural D/discourses which maintain ‘an industrial culture and
162
consciousness’. Analytic tools looked to create images of function and subject
position in the data, where the function of talk takes place within a particular temporal
and spatial context (Potter & Wetherell, 1987; Hökkä et al, 2010; Zeyer and Roth,
2011) discussed earlier. Subject position looks at agents as positioned or positioning
themselves within particular repertoires, in part through use of pronouns (Harré and
Gillett, 1994). Here patterns within the data were read into both individual and
across interview transcripts, highlighting the collective and fluid nature of D/discourse
as discursive practice and language in use. In analysis multiple readings brought to
mind different patterns of speaking that, following Hökkä et al (2010) and Zeyer and
Roth (2011) sought to explore through different thematic reconstructions that linked
curriculum, sustainability and agency. Overlaying existent repertoires onto the data
allowed for a measure of patterning of talk that I felt was needed given my
inexperience in this type of research, theoretical focus and research questions.
Interpretive repertoires are recognisable through attention to argumentative chains,
linking to prior analysis involving orders and webs of meaning (Billig, 1991; Hajer,
1995; Jørgensen and Phillips, 2002; Iversen, 2014). Drawing on Zeyer and Roth’s
(2011) ‘common sense’ and ‘folk psychology’ repertoires (Gramsci, 1971; Potter and
Wetherell, 1987; Harré et al, 1999; Wetherell, 2001a; Claxton, 2005; Zeyer and
Roth, 2011) that linked environmental and agentic dimensions was useful here, as
was the temporal and teleological aspects of talk suggested by Harré et al (1999;
Emirbayer and Mische, 1998) which alongside environmental ‘positions’ sit at the
heart of D/discourses of sustainability, involving both moral assessments and
aesthetic values (McKeown and Hopkins, 2003). Curriculum repertoires (Hökkä et
al, 2010) sought to make discursive links to notions of accommodation of hegemonic
Discourses and articulations that speak of their reform.
163
On each occasion I framed the discussion as research surrounding change,
sustainability and curriculum in our own institutional context. I had not fully settled
on D/discourse analysis as my approach at the time of interviews, and in some ways
this further decentred my gaze allowing for notions of objectivity although not
dehumanisation in the process. The first question, noted in Chapter 3, sought some
‘information’ about respondent’s background, role and experience in HE. I was
surprised at how each respondent offered a different entry point into the interview
despite what I thought was a fairly straightforward question. I had not anticipated the
diversity I would find in the feel of each interaction, and the unique ways in which
each of these interviews unfolded. It may have been through inexperience, but I
found the interviews were controlled or at least directed far more by respondents
than self. My inclination towards informality within the process was met in very
different ways and, in this, I felt less of an ‘insider’ in these research relationships
than I thought I would, where our conversations did not necessarily represent a
shared sense of occasion. While much of my reading had focused on the interviewer
effect, there was also a significant respondent effect. Our changing demeanours
offered a sense of performance (Goffman, 1963; O’Donaghue, 2007) that confirmed
my sense of the poststructural, constructionist and interactionist nature of talk. The
flow of conversation and emergent positionings enabled me to dance with notions of
coalitions and subjective ‘equivalence’ and ‘difference’ (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985;
Fairclough, 2003) in part facilitated by my own inexperience.
I must admit I felt I could have ‘done better’ in the interviews, there was evidence of
times where my style of questioning, and engagement in conversation were perhaps
disruptive of my intention to facilitate respondent’s talk. I also noted I missed a
number of cues for further exploration, and in hindsight could be considered a lack of
164
‘presence’ (Peschl, 2007) in the process, but as noted in Chapter 3 it did allow for
repertoires to be brought into play (Quinn, 2009). In some ways my relative
ineptitude had helped me engage in the styles of questioning suggested by Strauss
et al (1964) that had highlighted or provoked ‘emotional hotspots’ or clearer
positions. Again analysis was iterative and time-consuming, seeing and following
multiple trajectories into and out of the data, using post-ecological repertoires (Zeyer
and Roth, 2011) but also developing more inductive chains of meaning grounded in
the narratives discursively constructed in the interview data themselves.
Drawing on Zeyer and Roth (2011), as outlined in Chapter 3, I sought to explore how
individuals engage in and generate post-ecological repertoires of discourse. In some
ways the relevance of the framework could be questioned, relating as it does to
Continental common-sense repertoires used by young people. However, the
framework offered potential, and a measure of familiarity recognisable in my own
ways of speaking, my own ‘habits of mind’ perhaps. In the process of reading into the
data particular repertoires I noted difficulty in following their approach however.
Zeyer and Roth’s (2011) attention to individual voices in analysis, grounded in ‘big
scoops’ (Quinn, 2009) of discourse offered potential for a measure of transparency in
the process, validating findings for the reader (Flick, 2002; Denscombe, 2007). I
considered in beginning this phase that by involving blocks of text within analysis that
individuals could be recognised in what is a small institution. Their particular turns of
phrase, their idiolect might be seen and the promised anonymity compromised. To
overcome this, although with attendant issues of validation for the reader noted
earlier, responses in relation to particular repertoires were mixed in my writing,
envisaged as part of the discursive circulation within my own organisation and part of
wider flows of conversations and texts. As far as possible given the grounding of
165
analysis in the data I have tried to be inclusive of individual voices. In this process I
seemed to dance again with earlier analysis, to make tentative links through my use
of analytic memos that noted particular paths of coding and associated analysis as
they emerged.
Prior to this engagement during the interviews themselves and as transcription
progressed, I was interested in the extent of challenge and counter-institutional
Discourse, highlighting notions of culture as being individually constituted rather than
socially determined (Sayer, 1991; Fairclough, 2001). The first point of reference in
change noted by all respondents was economic, mirroring the new framing of HE
noted in LT2 and wider Discourse through review of literature (Blewitt, 2004; Sousa,
2011; Brown, 2011; Sylvestre et al, 2013). Change for all was storied in negative
terms, as an attack on the real purposes, processes and potentials of HE, presenting
a threat to knowledge, professional autonomy and personal security. This was also
linked to a sense of punitive accountability although the associated strength of
feeling and varying emphases were also evident in individual talk.
The circulating discourse featured a narrative of a top down exercise in
governmentality (Keller, 2013), part of ‘neo-liberal policy technology which is
imposed on us and can change the nature of education itself’ (S3). The intra
institutional discourse suggested that this involved ‘the logic of capitalism’ (S1) with
knowledge and skills being those ‘valued by the employers i.e. private business’
(S3), an institution which was ‘fatally compromised with consumerism’ (S1) to whom
we need ‘to sell degrees to people on the grounds that you will be able to earn more’
(S1). Wider changes were recognised creating a narrative of ‘a vocational place, and
institution, and that’s very much the way that higher education is going anyway, and
the loss of pure subjects’ (S2) and ‘wiping out humanities courses’ (S4). The dualism
166
suggested between academic and vocational purposes were linked unquestioningly
to global shifts presented as fact. It was interesting that the respondent who
identified themselves as a manager was quieter in this critique, although I could not
read too much into this singularity. This was linked to the skills agenda and
economic frame where employers were positioned as non-academic other and as
unknowing, with influence yet they ‘did not know what skills their graduate employees
needed’ (S1) and ‘skills that are valued by the employers ie private business..[pause]
and, I’m not saying that those skills are not valuable in their own right .. but they don’t
have a value perspective’ (S3).
In this discourse we positioned ourselves as under threat and in this nominalised any
articulations of individual culpability in this state of affairs, taking a similar position to
the institutional one noted and thus suggestive at this point of organisational and
educational irresponsibility (Beck, 1994; Biesta, 2005). As well as the negative
positioning of employers, there were elements of an oppositional position of
academics to the technical managerial system, and hence those who operate within
those discursive coalitions as managers, something I was aware of in my own
articulations and exaggerations, but now challenged. Academic insecurities were
articulated in a discourse of personal insecurity and change ‘obviously outside of the
institution’ and policy climate that ‘does impinge to the extent that I um I feel I am
probably not investing in the rest of my career as an academic because I think it will
probably be cut short at some point or another’ (S2), a situation where people
‘moved from one teaching area to another’ (S3) against their expectations, and if felt
their aspirations ‘I really expected that I would be a lecturer for the rest of my career,
that’s what I wanted to do .. and because it hasn’t turned out like that..’ (S4).
167
Change had further undermined HE and academic knowledge in relation to research
funding ‘where the price of getting the support of a governing body involves that you
have to do a survey, they’re not interested in any other kind of research’ (S1)
although this was not a shared articulation. Change was narrated as problematic for
students and strategies were seen not to ‘speak directly to the experience of
students, in exactly the same way that there’s an assumption about what education
is, what it’s for, how we ought to be doing it’ (S3). Focus on the assumptions of
others rather than our own again seemed to nominalise personal involvement in
D/discourse, with shifts of pronoun use from a knowing ‘I’ to an unknowing ‘we’ or
‘they’, although respondents corrected themselves at times. Questions of purpose
danced with notions of change and quality in mutually reinforcing ways where
increased managerialsm had led to quality systems that ‘mitigate against quality as
we’re all busy working with structural stuff’ (S3) where change might emerge ‘almost
despite management’ (S1), rather than developing and maintaining working and
other educational relationships.
In many ways this seemed to represent a critical [realist] discourse, with a dualist
intonation of angst that positioned an impersonal system as controlling of our actions,
involving an othering of particular coalitions and positioning of academics as an
oppressed group and thus forming this new coalition of resistance. Naturalisation of
this state of affairs as ‘obvious’ featured an associated sense of inevitability, no
matter what is ‘said’ or ‘done’. While narrative analysis, in melding individual
storylines into a collective voice felt somewhat inauthentic however, a construction
too far. In looking again at the data using Zeyer and Roth’s (2011) agentic repertoire
underpinned by ongoing attention to webs of meaning, I could ‘see’ both the
pragmatist and control repertoires in operation. The pragmatist repertoire mobilizes
168
practical arguments in opposition to ideal stances, and here one can see ideals
noted above, academic autonomy, disciplinary learning, student experience, human
flourishing and personal security all diminished by the realities of markets,
consumerism, policy, managerialism or in involvement of the control repertoire by
employers, consumers [of things and education], policy makers and managers.
Such initial framing raises to consciousness the potentially debilitating and negative
constructions within this repertoire, and the othering of social sectors, managers and
to some extent students as learners. This was also noted by one of the respondents
as an issue in practice. Here there was evidence of ‘intentional positioning’ (Zelle,
2009:4) within the conversations, and ‘emotional hotspots’ (Quinn, 2005) noted
earlier. Countering the cultural othering of managers, a respondent who identified
themselves as an academic ‘manager’ spoke differently. It was an interesting
difference in discourse in relation to the much louder critique, not echoed by
respondents who identified themselves primarily as academics intonating a sense of
discourse coalitions and academic tribes if not on disciplinary grounds (Hajer, 1995;
Macfarlane, 2004; Becher and Trowler, 2001). Here different discursive storylines
were noted:
but when you look at the senior managers, um, actually most of them
work longer hours than we do, um…. and I obviously know some
better than others, but they’re just people trying to do their best for the
institution, um and they spend most of their time doing what they think
will help…(S4)
The positioning of the needs of the institution above individual needs maintains
notions of concensus and can depersonalise decision making. It also suggests an
interesting positioning of academics as less hard working than managers, potentially
169
maintaining the negative institutional webs of meaning relating to teaching suggested
in earlier textual analysis.
Gripped by the possibilities of this line of analysis I moved on. The first dimension of
Zeyer and Roth’s interpretative framework looks to discursive repertoires that
indicate ‘acceptance of the in-principle relevance of environmental issues’ found in
Chapter 3 and I was keen to visit this given my focus and interest. There was
discursive concensus that we face ‘real issues’ of unsustainability. This D/discourse
emphasised the ‘likely certainties that we face are pretty unpleasant ones … a very
challenging and scary point in the history of the human race…’ (S2) where ‘we live in
a system, that I don’t think is sustainable’ (S3), and where we were individually and
globally ‘living beyond our means’ (S4). The discourse continued ‘I personally find it
hard to take because it is so catastrophic, and dramatic, it is almost too much to bear
or think about’ (S1). This was a situation with little discursive hope ‘because unlike
Christianity there is no ultimate salvation is there’ (S1).
In environmental terms, this repertoire according to the Zeyer and Roth suggests that
despite this recognition of environmental issues, the inherent pessimism tends, in
drawing on ‘folk science’ and ‘pragmatist repertoires’ to involve mockery of idealism
such as that associated with sustainability, and something I am known for. For
example my own affiliation was questioned where I was ‘on a road to nothing, even if
we do have an effect it is so long before it takes shape and they won’t know it’s you’
(S1). I thought at the time that this was not necessarily important or likely that it
would be me who brought about change, and this comment seemed suggestive of
the metaphor of machine within educational discourse, where correct inputs would
produce particular outputs, but again I had to be careful to maintain a measure of
170
fidelity in use of method, to ground analysis in the data. Pessimism was more
generally noted in a created discursive context where ‘the rest of the world’s too
powerful isn’t it, I mean if you are trying to combat consumerism and links to
identities, you are coming up against a massive culture industry, aren’t you. And HE
is not even a big part of their lives anymore’ (S1).
Links to cognitive dissonance were raised, circulated and projected into the future
through the concept of sustainability ‘with sustainability …. you’ve got this enormous
dissonance, haven’t you between… what is actually happening, and what’s projected
in the near future to be happening’ (S3), and ‘there is this sort of awful sort of
cognitive dissonance between knowing what you believe to be true, and then the
other part which is why not just carry on being normal’ (S2). I return to issues of
normality in a moment. Avoidance strategies were articulated both professionally and
personally, ‘I try to ignore many unpleasant aspects of working [here] as far as I can,
along with the insecurity with which we live’ (S2) and where denial could be
theoretically supported and personally avoided ‘the form of denial I take is to say it’s
all down to capitalism….. because mostly it absolves me from doing anything’ (S1).
Interesting from the above was a general acceptance of environmental issues,
indeed the enormity and intractability of issues was clear. For Zeyer and Roth
(2011: 40), a ‘folk-science’ repertoire operates here where issues are presented as
facts and where ‘[t]he result is the unquestionable and inevitable truth: an ominous
future’.
While acknowledgement of environmental issues was noted, Zeyer and Roth (2011)
suggest that for many these may not be seen as a priority, and this also had
implications for inclusion of sustainability in curriculum development or what that
might ‘look like’. I turned my attention to the fifth dimension of their model ‘relegation
171
of environmental issues on the political priority list’, involving for the authors evidence
of pragmatist and folk science repertoires. In this, other priorities might be seen as
more important in curriculum development, resistance would be suggested as likely
and in discourse those speaking often present organisational arguments, politically
aligned with questions of expertise rather than issues of power, also noted by Cotton
et al (2007) earlier. The D/discourse emergent from my own interviews suggested
dominance of social rather than environmental curriculum purpose in that ‘we are a
widening participation institution, and… I see that as profoundly linked to
sustainability but for other people…..’ (S3) potentially positioning the speaker as
aware and engaged and others as potentially unknowing, disinterested or resistant
again reinforced through use of pronouns. While the value might be noted, perhaps
in part out of politeness given my framing of interviews, immediate qualification of the
ideal was commonly used ‘it will probably become, um, applied in terms of economic
sustainability’ (S4) a somewhat sceptical position shared by all respondents.
Support for this discourse was expressed as involving a machine like metaphor
where history would be likely to repeat itself and the economy would continue to
dominate future actions ‘I’ve seen it happening before you know with other cross
curricular themes’ (S1), where ‘you can’t force people to buy into a, actually into any
agenda wholeheartedly, certainly not something that’s um, that requires such a
fundamental shift of position’ (S3) and where ‘they might be talking it up but I don’t
think in practice it will have an effect, unless it has some impact, some money
benefit’ (S3). This was also projected into the future where it ‘will get left to wither on
the vine so we’ll have written policies …. with very little attention to practice’ (S2).
Overall the discourse flowed in which ‘I think we’ll do it in some ways and not in
others’ (S4) recognising the dimensions of sustainability but in a real world [of
172
management given the speaker perhaps] where ‘there are so many other pressures
on us as an institution, pressures on us and demands on us, I think those things will
always compromise what we do and how we do it to some degree’ (S4) and ‘its seen
as marginal and because, when people are busy they’ve got, you know they’ve got
their own priorities, got their own ways of doing things’. This also resonated Zeyer
and Roth’s (2011) suggestion of disillusionment about our potential agency, noted in
the earlier focus on narrative where anonymous others block all ‘sensible’ action for
educational or environmental improvement, bolstering the loss of autonomy
discourse and suggesting the need for management and leadership to spearhead
future developments despite the general critique of these discourse coalitions ‘it will
depend on the response of the managers …. about how great a priority it becomes’
(S3).
Individual agency was also challenged in light of the systemic nature of issues where
current pessimism continued to be projected into the future ‘we can’t act in isolation
from that so there’s unsustainable structures and practices and things…that will
influence us, so no matter how idealistic we are, there are going to be limits to what
we can do’ (S4). This suggested a more muted discourse of connectivity beyond the
institution than that articulated in official texts which sat alongside discourses of
sustainability maintaining pessimism ‘one of the problems with sustainability that it’s
so big and so complex that it’s very easy to think..oh god we can’t do anything’ (S2).
This seemed a cultural and educational discourse of despair (Harré et al, 1999;
Hicks, 2010) in need of change if our psychological sustainability is to be considered
(Huckle, 2004). I wondered what I could do about this.
Interestingly while other social priorities were ideally stated as suggested earlier,
sustainability was situated within a repertoire of implied unwelcome idealism, part of
173
a genre of contemporary agents as not ‘normal’ noted above. This concept was filled
and positioned those who used it as I did, linked to a discourse of extremism or as
misguided fantasy echoing Zeyer and Roth’s (2011) findings and Blühdorn’s (2002)
suggestion of implied fundamentalism. Despite recognition of the issues, the policy
led suggestions for sustainability and the associated academic movement, these
were seen as wasted visioning perhaps. As noted earlier ‘greenspeak’ was largely
missing within institutional documents, and this interpretative analysis suggested it
was not, and would be unlikely to be, a favoured discourse in my own cultural and
curriculum context at this time. While once I struggled and personalised this ‘critique’
however, I now found this discourse interesting rather than troubling, and noted a
more authentic shift from normative concern to empirical interest becoming more
central through this process which felt quite liberating in some ways.
Academic discourses of avoidance and denial of environmental issues suggested in
postecological theory were also structured in repertoires of ‘neo-materialist and
consumption-oriented patterns’ in our conversations drawing on ‘folk psychology’,
that nominalised and naturalised consumptive behaviour often in/for selves rather
than others (Zeyer and Roth, 2011) where it was deemed an issue. In many ways
these did not feature, given my line of questioning in interviews, but occasional
inclusions of this repertoire were noted. While HE was ‘fatally compromised by
consumerism’ (S1) this was a personal concern or a reason to avoid raising such
issues in the curriculum for fear of accusations of hypocrisy. Here the discourse
suggested often apologetic recognition of personal interests and acquisitive
behaviour in which ‘even though I can identify consumerism in everyone else, it’s an
irrational desire, it is very hard to stop that in me, so it’s such a challenge. I mean it’s
so total, it’s such a big challenge, it’s so pessimistic’ (S1). Curriculum that featured
174
sustainability might help students ‘to move into a different place’ (S2) but they were
positioned as potentially ‘complacent’ in the present and for the future, as unknowing
(Beck, 1994) ‘very well trained consumers, who tend to define themselves in much
more materialistic terms than previous generations’ (S2) bringing in positions of age
related knowing and unknowing perhaps. Normative emphases, noted in my own
articulations were continually reconsidered in light of analysis as were their inherent
contradictions and I was equally involved in the stories and discourses as noted in
textual analysis and discussed further below. Another interesting aspect of this
repertoire involved a more aesthetic view of consumption where we could engage in
leisure activities that involved palliative measures of avoidance ‘since we’ve had the
boat… I mean once you’re on the water you just don’t think about anything else’ (S4).
Here the environmental symbolism resonated utilitarian, humanistic, aesthetic and
naturalistic perspectives suggested by Kellert (1993) and noted in analysis of the
Sustainability Statement above and loose links between institutional Discourse and
discourses were made out of the data.
I had recognised earlier in this process the suggested dangers of promoting
‘sustainability’ as a curriculum and thus educational master signifier (Blühdorn, 2002;
Bracher, 2006: Wals, 2012) and potential resistance was considered pertinent to
understanding the beat of the system (Meadows, 2001; Ahearn, 2001; Alkire, 2008).
Again I was interested in repertoires relating to my own position and agency
enhancing epistemological and reflexive challenge. Here repertoires that
emphasised ‘replacement of the emancipatory subject-oriented notion of
modernization’, and ‘radical ecologism and direct eco-political action as variants of
terrorism’ (Zeyer and Roth, 2011) were read into the data. Resistance, often
nominally expressed as a quality in others, was evident here discursively
175
constructing this as not normal or educational, linking to earlier discourses in terms of
priorities and purpose. ‘Well, yeah there’s a puritanical side to it these days, you
know, and it’s almost asking too much, to live an aesthetic lifestyle, it’s asking a lot’
(S1). Here I could see different fillings of notions of aestheticism perhaps as
discussed earlier. This articulation also linked back to the first repertoire where
Zeyer and Roth noted that we support inactivity in terms of what would be good or
not for others in this case students and colleagues positioned as in need of
protection. ‘I think that would depend on my ability to, to make it palatable for them’
(S2) and ‘students find that very very difficult and challenging, and I do it to a far
lesser extent across teaching’(S3) , where ‘I find interesting …….maybe don’t know
why the need to know about the environment …. so it has been really quite difficult to
frame the content in a way that they can relate to’ (S4) and where ‘we are asking
students to do something that is impossible really cos the staff won’t do it’ (S1).
The discourse of agency in pursuit of sustainability as abnormal was also part of an
historical narrative where similar attempts towards change were either
‘fundamentalist’ or politically divisive. ‘I mean there was, a few years ago, some kind
of ecology cult, that took hold of the college for a bit, and so students would come
and tell me off for drinking a bottle of water’ (S1). This was suggested as something
of a paradox where ‘the more sincere and committed you are, the more likely you are
to put people off’ (S1). Notions of cult, activism, hypocrisy and transcendental
violence (Biesta, 2005) suggest resistance to behavioural approaches or perceived
radicalism or fundamentalism (Blühdorn, 2002) drawing on both pragmatist and
control repertoires (Zelle and Roth, 2011). Here perhaps was a space for future
discussion, a glimmer of hope grounded in pedagogic dialogue, noted also in textual
analysis and discussed in a moment. Other respondents were less vocal in this light
176
which may be out of politeness in the research situation, or that this was not seen as
an issue in curriculum terms or some other reasons.
Analysis to date seemed to support notions of postecologism (Zeyer and Roth, 2011)
of rationalised inaction and diminished sense of agency projected onto others in
discourses of its abnormality. In temporal terms past and present seemed to
outweigh more hopeful visions of the future, and as Hicks (2010: 10) notes:
One of the dilemmas we collectively face is that the future increasingly
feels a troubled place and we have no choice but to go there. Thinking
about this and the local-global issues that confront us can be worrying,
frightening, puzzling, annoying, challenging, exciting and even
downright dangerous. We are, whether we choose to be conscious of
it or not, confronted by a range of emotions that we may actually not
wish to know about, let alone feel. The future is currently a worrying
place, somewhere that we would possibly rather not go.
Zeyer and Roth (2011: 45) suggest that our commonsense repertoires, drawing in
part on the wealth of globalised media ‘supports a fact-oriented interpretation and
articulation of the physical and mental world’. Citing Latour (1999) the authors note
that facts thereby become Facts with a capital F, just as Alvesson and Kärreman
(2000) suggest discourses become Discourses. While the common sense repertoire
may emphasise inherent environmental pessimism, the agential repertoire developed
by Zeyer and Roth (2011) produces similar effects in human and social terms, where
the ideal and real are seen as incompatible, and in this individual action will fail
because of unknowing others. This can be envisioned as a manifestation of
reflexive modernity (Giddens, 1991; Beck, 1994), where risk, uncertainty and loss of
control have profound impacts on our personal sense of identity, wellbeing and
power (Zeyer and Roth, 2011; Hicks, 2010, 2012). Hicks and Holden (1995) note
that those with little sense of control over their lives, or those who are in fear of the
177
future tend to adopt an understandable ‘live for today’ mentality, something that
Lovelock (2006) also suggested by colleagues aware of their avoidance. Similar
arguments can be progressed in terms of risk (Borne, 2013: 136) and while
sustainability is an important concept at a global level, at an individual level it is
complex and difficult to maintain and can lead to the emergence of ‘a form of
counter-reflexive behaviour at the individual scale, which has far-reaching
implications’ involving avoidance and indifference towards the integration of these
discourses into curriculum practices.
These repertoires for the authors might be considered ‘a symptom of environmental
depression, based on the loss of articulated agency with respect to the environment
and environmental protection’ (Zeyer and Roth, 2011: 46; Borne, 2013). This has
educational implications in that teaching about sustainability needs to pay attention to
the repertoires available and try to extend them by offering alternatives (Brennan,
2001; Stibbe, 2009). Pessimism in environmental discourse may lead to denial,
psychic numbing and cognitive dissonance, but it can also prove to be a prompt for
agency (Biesta, 2005) ‘some parts of me are very very pessimistic, and in terms of
saving the world from global warming I think that it is unlikely that we’re going to do
that, but, at the same time, I am really deeply committed to being active at all sorts of
levels, to do something about it’ (S2). As Stibbe(2009) suggested different
discourses will inspire different people in different ways and perhaps the key here
links to changing agentic and pedagogical discourses where such change is at least
considered possible if uncertain in terms of outcomes.
Dancing again with the data I looked to curriculum repertoires suggested by Hökkä et
al (2010) in their research discussed in Chapter 3. From their inquiry the authors
developed two meta-repertoires related to curriculum, the first linked to hegemonic
178
accommodation and the second to purposeful reform. Again looking to patterns in
local data respondents discursively constructed the competitive nature of curriculum
as a difficult argumentative realm of contest and contention. The backdrop for this
was for all linked to change and for some to particular discourse coalitions and
workloads supportive of earlier positions it seemed. An issue of lack of time tended
to dominate this discourse where we would like to develop curriculum ‘but just
haven’t got time at the moment’ (S4) where ‘we’re so tied up in committees and
structures’ and ‘heavily focused on teaching, we’ve got every hour of our year
mapped out’ (S3). Beyond that it was suggested that management models such as
‘workload allocation’ did not ‘really reflect the time it takes us to do the work’ (S3) so
that ‘we very rarely have the opportunity’ for educational conversations or
collaboration.
The loss of disciplines, as something that had accommodated the economic purpose
and diminished potential for curriculum development, potentially positons lecturers as
curriculum developers into two different lines of discourse according to Hökkä et al
(2010). The first is as protectors of their own subject areas and in this a second
emphasis involves negotiation of resources, where individuals who took up this
challenge were positioned, according to the authors, as conscientious agents. This
was noted in conversations in my own institution, linked not only to academic but to
social and environmental curriculum purpose particularly by those not identifying
themselves in disciplinary terms such as myself. In conversations such competitions
were expressed ‘colleagues here have become a bit heated about this’ particularly
when ‘connected to sort of political egalitarianism and social justice stuff as well’
(S1). Interestingly, the past was a time of a better approach to education when we
‘used to have big debates about this’ but hadn’t ‘debated it for years’ (S1).
179
Issues of pragmatic approaches linked to personal preference and amusement of
students was inferred here denying any sort ‘of great vision about what sort of
knowledge might be needed’ (S2). Notions of the conscientious teacher were linked
to positions of knowing and non-knowing if in an inverted way ‘where it is really for
the knowing ones who thought that the whole this was a waste of time, discussing
curriculum and what it should be like’ (S1). Perhaps more troubling was an inclusion
in this discourse that suggested colleagues who do not agree with particular
curriculum models and approaches would undermine them ‘the main problem was
that in effect your own colleagues were undermining you I think’ (S1).
Indifference was also highlighted in a context where ‘we won’t have a discussion’ but
if we were more conscientious and ‘if we really cared we would’ (S3) a discourse of
reflexive blame perhaps. In this interdisciplinary working was discursively associated
with the changing vocationally oriented Learning and Teaching Strategies that had
broken down disciplinary boundaries and at the same time involved ‘stretching
across’ into areas of teaching with ‘which we may not be familiar’ (S2). For some this
had involved a discourse of marginalisation of being ‘on the periphery’ involving ‘a
real struggle to kind of bridge that gap’ (S4) and this was linked particularly to student
expectations and interests. In this the barriers to interdisciplinarity were both
educational and personal. The discourse also generated possible areas of collective
action given there was ‘less othering of each other among the academics’ although
increased ‘diversity in standpoints’ (S4) might make more implicit assertions of
competition that could suggest disciplinary protection as important and preclude
working together in more sustainable ways (Brennan, 1991, 1994; Stables and Scott,
2001; Scott and Gough, 2007).
180
Hökkä et al (2010) note the practical knowledge repertoire as the second dimension
of the accommodation meta-repertoire to be linked to the importance of curriculum
and practical skills. The discursive shift emphasises vocationally oriented and
experiential learning, and the requirements of employment [in their case linked to
school subject studies and educational sciences] and hence danced with the sad
story of disciplinary loss and the need for its preservation. In accordance with their
findings, repertoires circulating within my own HE context highlighted the problematic
nature of externally facing curriculum development that challenges personal and
institutional sustainability suggested in the narratives above. Here the stretched
curriculum would struggle to compensate for the lack of education in the face of
training noted by the authors and a feature in LT2.
Suggestions of the need for greater interdisciplinarity within curriculum development
that can focus on sustainability, may well prove problematic in light of current
discourses within my own HE context which was in mourning of its disciplinary loss.
Blake et al. (2013) from their own inquiry suggest this as a challenge to traditional
curriculum models through its focus on soft skills. It is also seen to be essential to
cope with the holistic, systemic nature of the world and emergent environmental
issues, and in research oriented institutions noted by Ryan (2011) in Chapter 2,
something that resonated with LT2 strategy perhaps. This also echoes Discourses
of employability with the G8 University Summit’s (2008) call for a global and
interdisciplinary perspective, also emphasised in HEFCEs Strategy Update in 2009
(HEFCE 2009: 35). Wilson (1999) criticised disciplinary fragmentation and its effects
on ontological uncertainty, ‘the ongoing fragmentation of knowledge and the resulting
chaos in philosophy are not reflections of the real world but artefacts of scholarship’
181
(cited in Blake et al, 2013: 9) supporting the need for poststructural curriculum
models noted in Chapter 2.
For Selby sustainability necessarily crosses disciplinary boundaries, involving as it
does ‘aesthetic, cultural, ecological, economic, environmental, ethical, philosophical,
political, scientific, social, spiritual, and technological dimensions’ (Selby, 2006: 57).
HEFCE (2008) in their review of SD in HE suggest wider barriers in terms of the
governance of the sector, linked to economic and epistemic constraints through for
example research funding and the RAE reflected in the discourse of S1 above . This
had also been suggested by Becher and Trowler (2001: 181; Sousa, 2011) when
they noted ‘[a]cademic communities are subject to influences from wider society as
well as from the inherent nature of epistemological issues on which they are
engaged’, although the more I read the more readily I seemed to recognise the
inherent complexities and contradictions in every discursive dance I had with the
data. The call for a reinstatement of disciplines by each of the respondents might
highlight further tensions here in terms of sustainability.
A theory/practice issue formed more of a basis for positioning speakers in discourse
‘camps’ and ‘constituencies’ more than disciplinary tribes, linking to a competitive
repertoire but in a slightly different way perhaps as this incorporated issues of identity
associated with alternative experiences of work. Here there seemed to be particular
coalitions between self- identified academics and practitioners and at heart
differences were expressed in terms of epistemic tensions between theory led
practice and practice led theory. In curriculum terms this tended to support more
instructivist and constructivist coalitions although again these reconstructions were
always tentative and open to alternative interpretation I felt. All put forward a
generic argument in terms of curriculum purpose linked to a ‘universal umbrella’ of
182
critical thinking and ‘developing the student’s capacity to think for themselves’ (S2)
resulting in ‘an independence of thought’ (S4) suggestive of an academic, liberal
curriculum model rather than a critical or poststructural emphasis on critical
pedagogy (Bracher, 2006).
What was also being articulated was that educational relationships with students
were themselves contradictory where paying attention to students interests, needs
and improving their consumer experiences sat in contrast with a focus on skills and
learning outcomes which had led to being forced into a ‘banking education’ (S3)
model, suggestive of similar arguments put forward in review of literature and noted
in earlier analysis. Again discursively the emphasis was on postecological and risk
related articulations of what we could not do rather than what we could, and in
moving to reconstructions of more reformist repertoires I hoped to be able to
construct avenues of discursive possibility (Harré et al, 1999).
In terms of the more reformist meta-repertoire noted by Hökkä et althey suggest a
dimension that they name as the collaborative repertoire. In my own institution the
common external threat, from employers, policy or a more abstract economy, or
internally from a top-down system of management, generated barriers to
collaboration. Interdisciplinarity was also discoursed as a barrier to conscientious
agentic autonomy, and in links to vocationalism as a threat to academic standards
and professional autonomy more generally. While academic conversations were
considered important, particularly for one respondent, the current situation and
possibilities for the future were highly constrained by agentic repertoires suggested in
earlier postecological analysis, where those who hoped to implement change were,
particularly linked to social and environmental purpose, positioned as idealists, doom
mongers or claiming some divine understanding that was seen as dangerous, even if
183
there was agreement in principle that these were important topics. These deviations
in repertoires from those developed by the authors may link to cultural, institutional or
individual differences between the different research contexts, issues of data sets
and my use of repertoires in the process or some other reasons something that again
suggests the need for further study.
Educational conversations were needed, and this offered a sense of hope, but
generally this was set within a more pessimistic framework where failure was
inevitable and discourses of autonomy seemed to override those for collaboration,
where such interdisciplinary work tended to feature articulations of alienation,
passivity, and further potentially irreconcilable conflict in the interests of students.
Rather than building bridges, it would seem we would continue building discursive
walls. Here I felt a sense of pessimism with regards to the system and an
unsustainable future which I had introduced into the conversations through this
inquiry, and in this I wondered if I too was potentially placing further constraints on
discourses of hope.
The research-based knowledge repertoire suggested by Hökkä et al involves a more
traditional academic genre of discourse stressing the importance of linking theory
and practice. This was evident in my own analysis, again more hopeful than existent
given the discursive camps noted earlier. The threats of risk, uncertainty and change
had for those involved in this particular institutional discourse, limited their sense of
personal agency, and questioned the agency of others. Time ill spent in pursuit of
inappropriate measures of quality, accountability and performativity were restricting
opportunities of research, and even when this was made available, constraints on
such research linked to funding and external pressures noted earlier would further
confound ideas of quality and educational purpose. Rather than ignorance of the
184
complexities, contradictions or concerns in practice however, these seemed to
reinforce the sense of malaise and diminish more positive agentic discourse with
articulations that suggested ‘I don’t have control’ (S3) or ‘don’t have an influence’
(S2) creating a discursive situation where ‘there’s just no thinking about alternatives’
(S1).
The final repertoire suggested by the authors relates to talk of a ‘break with tradition’.
This discourse is highly critical of current curriculum practice as outdated further
looking to change which in a context of risk, might be captured by unhelpful
Discourses of modernity. Here criticism of traditional approaches, set within a
knowledge society were particularly noted in my own context. The contradictory
nature of this discourse which on the one hand talked of autonomy, challenged
change and shifts to vocationalism, and on the other sought to reform curriculum was
interesting. Reform was needed but it was not the sort of reform being forced on us
despite our eyes being fixed on the directions of management and leadership. While
inherently critical of the past, reform itself featured in this discourse of critique that
was economic, social, environmental and agentic. The discoursed necessity of
reform as again linked to positioning of/as conscientious teachers also sat in contrast
to notions of fundamentalist agency being articulated using Zeyer and Roth’s (2011)
common sense and agentic repertoires. While agency might be possible and was
certainly needed in my own discourse developed through review of literature and
translated into empirical inquiry, this latter dimension offered less hope for change,
and I could see the value of avoidance in academic pursuits that as noted could
absolve personal sense of responsibility for change. Confirming Elliott (2002: 293)
respondents were well aware of and involved in articulating the ‘climate of risk’
185
affecting self, others, and broader social and natural systems, although were limited
in their articulations of possibility.
My final foray into the conversational data looked to both the future and discourses
that were more hopeful, therefore, that might offer new ways of speaking that could
break out of the environmental, social and personal pessimism reconstructed to date.
Also, in confirmation of Emirbayer and Mische, (1998: 1008) I sought to highlight
individual’s ‘capacity for imaginative and/or deliberative response’ and suggested
action. The emphasis here was on individual and teleological narratives of change,
education and sustainability that attempted to go beyond modelling, to a more
hopeful position and a reconstruction of the data that read new creative meanings
into the circulating discourse and highlight my own engagement in the process. As
noted below, analytical and reflexive memos became key here, linking earlier
analysis with subsequent engagement with the data, and in this looking towards my
own articulations, narratives and reflections as a source of data and learning (Peschl,
2007; Mezirow, 2000; Sterling, 2011).
Conceptual, normative and educational positions were highlighted that suggested
agency in light of current concerns discussed in Chapter 2. As noted earlier for one
respondent pessimism did not preclude articulations of more positive change and
personal agency, and in this there was, given my bias and remembrance of my
existential angst, a glimmer of hope. This discourse circulated as one of commitment
and normative concern for colleagues, students, wider society and nature. ‘I am
really deeply committed to being active at all sorts of levels, to do something about it’
(S2), where ‘I think it [sustainability] should be taken up, I think it is important
anywhere in the curriculum’ (S3), where ‘sustainability on all levels, I think it is
absolutely relevant in every area, I can’t think of one where it wouldn’t be…’ (S4).
186
While once this might have proved highly self-affirming, I surprisingly challenged
these articulations of sustainability as themselves open to question. This was a
profound moment in analysis, although I had concerns that I could be enhancing my
own sense of pessimism prompting personal avoidance of opportunities to take
action.
In terms of curriculum development as the conversations progressed they seemed to
prompt attention to ways coalitions and individuals could contribute, ‘you raise an
interesting point, it’s a sort of blind spot for me ….. but here we are having an
educational conversation, I know it’s a research conversation as well, um, in which
I’m learning’ (S3), the research interviews also prompted subsequent articulations of
personal learning from the process giving it a measure of educational authenticity
noted by Seale (2012) in Chapter 3, and indicative of the desire to engage in
questions of knowledge and purpose which was itself hopeful. Disciplinary
contributions were also discoursed ‘I can see that perhaps… history would probably
do that in different ways, [and] philosophy would do that’ and ‘sociology’ (S1) was
also articulated as a major contributor. Moving beyond more traditional curriculum
discourses was also noted, of a more holistic approach ‘when you’re talking about
what we’re trying to do… its not just about the independent thinking skills they also
have that kind of broader understanding of the society they live in and the world they
live in’ (S4).
The power of conversation in the research process generated a different kind of
‘linguistic turn’, where the framing of the interviews shaped and included curriculum
and sustainability in the conversations, bringing it into being and creatively filled with
meaning in these moments ‘so that’s that’s a really powerful thing isn’t it, and,
listening to you talk then I was thinking I wonder how it would be to do that with staff
187
here’ (S4). In terms of the last comment while there may be a lack of clarity in
D/discourses of sustainability (Brennan, 1991) including my own, analysis and more
importantly perhaps the conversations themselves generated more hopeful visions in
self. Perhaps here rather than ways of speaking that resonated angst,
fundamentalism, idealism and rationalised inactivity a different educational
curriculum (Kelly, 2004; Biesta, 2005) discourse could start to emerge. The author[s]
of the Sustainability Statement too were committed to engagement with sustainability
in the informal curriculum. Here a measure of autonomy and perseverance would be
necessary perhaps ‘the reason you were able to do it was that there was a bit of
autonomy for academics’ where there is ‘nothing else to do other than keep batting
on about it, to risk being seen as a bit of a pain’ but where those who were
conscientious or agentic were seen as ‘heroes’ sustained by ‘a mixture of hope and
denial’ (S1). Despite a discourse of limited influence of HE in the present or future,
the importance of the experience of my studies was something personally noted in
Chapter 1 and this too is shared, ‘but certainly, my degree hugely developed my
understanding of the world around me, in terms of global politics and interactions’
(S4). Even institutionally muted positivity was noted ‘we do offer a lot, we do have a
lot going for us, we do a lot of good things that I think have probably been lost, at
least to some degree, in the large institutions’ (S2).
In relation to risk (Beck, 1992, 1998, 2008) however embracing notions of academic
knowledge and disciplinary expertise, awareness of the threats of industrialism to
education and with a loss of social thinking and moral guidance primarily deferred
onto others, this critique itself seemed to reinforce the D/discourses it was intent to
undermine. Interestingly, while knowledge was questioned, articulations of issues
presented them as real highlighting perhaps our continued emphasis on scientific
188
[including social scientific] knowledge, key to notions of academic quality and
autonomy, but also perpetuating existential and embodied notions of risk, doubt and
mistrust.
Technological development seen as essential in texts remained generally
unquestioned and this silence was in itself telling in maintenance of discursive risk by
omission. The economic and utility value of nature or sustainability as a curriculum
concept was noted as something key to its uptake which would involve management
and wider decisions to which we were all prey it would seem. In this my own
institution, along with HE more generally, could be seen to uphold his assertion that
we can offer ‘no clear solutions’ (Beck, 1994: 9). There was an interesting and
contradictory position adopted in discourse between academics as protectors of
knowledge and professional autonomy and a questioning of both, a position in which
HE could be constructed as cause, definition and solution to risks (Sousa, 2011).
The view of other’s using their autonomy in promotion of environmental sustainability
was, as noted, viewed with similar suspicion. In this challenge, however, this
discourse does raise pertinent questions about master signifiers and educational
transferance more generally (Bracher, 2006).
In my dance with psychological discourse analysis interpretative repertoires
highlighted patterns of talk, and attention to use of pronouns and indexicality drawing
on earlier linguistic tools, storylines and attention to metaphors allowed for attention
to be paid to notions of personal commitment and agency. Given my approach this
could only be considered in personal terms I felt. It was also in recognition of my own
dance and discourse of accommodation and postecological avoidance I had
recognised in my own ways of writing and speaking. My reflexive emphasis in this
was to take account of my own syllogisms, to consider the discursive positionings,
189
validations, significations and sense of rightness that touched me personally beyond
my rational and empirical self, and in this analyses and memos offered particular
insights, although mixed with the less well documented experiential moments that
could never be entirely bracketed out of the process nor captured in translation into
written form. Attention to potential revisions of my discursive positions and selective
agentic commitments as enactments paid attention to my own real and imagined
coalitions, narratives and D/discourses as the process continued. While my own
stories tried to make sense of an ongoing sense of guilt and confusion, they also
seemed to be involved in its maintenance. It was in this that personal feelings of risk
emerged where challenges to my own actions in the past and present, to my own
discursive contradictions prompted filling to the concept of change.
Empirical study had offered a number of challenges to my own interpretations and
discursive constructions of experience where I was able to look at them in different
ways that, in being free from realist certainty, begged a sense of wholeness which
while ethereal was deeply moving. I considered perhaps I had fallen prey to the
‘romance of resistance’ (Ahearn, 2001) which in denial of personal contradictions and
my own agency, had limited my potential for forgiveness and hope. My metaphor of
a dance, where my natural abilities to hear the tempo of the music and move in tune,
to know different steps involved and follow or adapt them with particular partners,
and to perhaps change the/my tune offers an ongoing sense of the individual and
shared nature of our educational and worldly endeavours. I feel I have reclaimed in
some ways, although I am not sure I can express how, my sense of agency in
considering ‘what a person can do in line with his or her conception of the good’ and
the possible (Sen, 1985 cited in Alkire, 2008:3; Meadows, 2001). The power of
conversation in the research process generated a different kind of ‘linguistic turn’, an
190
educational one, and perhaps the most important source of hope is that we still talk
in such terms rather in the divisive categorisations of teaching and learning found in
texts institutionally and in wider D/discourses (Biesta, 2005). Bringing sustainability
into these conversations opened a powerful space for dialogic filling of the concept in
educational curriculum terms (Kelly, 2004) and this prompted learning about the beat
of my organisation and myself.
Given the pace of change, issues we face and futures we make, all curriculum
developments and educational relationships involve risk, and in this ‘education only
begins when the learner is willing to take a risk’. While I had ‘known’ this I felt my
learning through research left less room for the language games of accommodation
and inactivity as Peschl (2007) had suggested. It has long been noted that learning
involves responses to ‘what challenges, irritates and disturbs us, rather than as the
acquisition of something that we want to possess’ (Biesta, 2005: 61) and the
challenges offered in this inquiry had certainly been disturbing at times although I
was and have always been keen to learn. Sustainability, educational curriculum,
agency and other contested concepts and issues would seem important curriculum
themes in prompting such disturbance (Selby and Kagawa, 2009) perhaps, and I am
more convinced on this point, involving transformative learning (Sterling, 2004) and
agency through ‘coming into presence’ (Biesta, 1999, 2001 cited 2005:61, 62;
Peschl, 2007; Mezirow, 2000).
For Biesta (2005: 64) like Ahearn (2001; Biesta and Tedder, 2006; Sen, 2007; Alkire,
2008; Tregidga et al, 2011) education is a social and relational intersubjective
process, where concerns for subjectivity and agency should provide opportunities for
students to be able to show ‘who they are and where they stand’ and in ‘being
challenged by otherness and difference’. Returning to Bracher (2006), this involves
191
avoiding issues of even well-meaning transference to a radical pedagogy that
challenges students to say what they think, where they stand and more agentically
perhaps how they will respond. The risk of such ‘transcendental violence’ it is
suggested can also create ‘conditions of possibility’. Here Biesta suggests the
immense responsibility that teachers carry that go beyond notions and measures of
quality or meeting needs, of organisational and individual irresponsibility, to a deeper
sense of ‘responsibility without knowledge’, something that resonated in his
subsequent writings I now considered as I could dialogue with his works in new
ways.
In focusing on D/discourse as a way to ask new questions about my constructions of
the world, and in recognition that both body and self are ‘experienced’ through
D/discourse, there was a space for personal engagement with the questions and the
process of enquiry that looked towards personal sense of purpose and action (Lash,
1994, 2003; Sen, 2007, 2013; Alkire, 2008). Peschl’s (2007:141) existential
dimension ‘on the will, the heart, finality, purpose’ involved ‘a willingness to construe
knowledge and values from multiple perspectives without loss of commitment to
one’s own values’ (Mezirow et al, 2000: 12) echoing this newly found dialogue,
although as noted this commitment was in part suspended by empirical engagement
and in recognition of academic and professional challenges to my position. The
experiential process of ‘epoché’ (Mezirow et al, 2000: 13) or presencing’ (Peschl,
2007; Biesta, 2005) of being emotionally prepared to be receptive was something
that seemed to resonate with both my habits of mind, despite my avoidance tactics,
and in the experience of conducting and writing about my research. In and through
this attention to self in inquiry Peschl suggests we move towards new visions and
plans of action embedded and therefore agentic in their deeper understanding of
192
context (Caldwell, 2007; Emirbayer and Mische, 1998; Sen, 2007; Lash, 2000;
Trowler, 2010). I move onto my reflexive and agentic ‘conclusions’ in the following
and final chapter of this thesis.
193
Chapter 5: Conclusions
At the outset of this thesis I aimed to explore a number of key questions that enabled
an empirical rather than normative view of curriculum and sustainability in my own
institution and more broadly. This Chapter suggests the position I now find myself in
in relation to the topic, the research process and my own professional practice. The
first question, largely framed through review of literature sought to contextualise this
research through attention to change as a linguistic phenomenon, in which
economic, socio-cultural and environmental D/discourses construct meaning and
purpose for both curriculum, and sustainability in HE and position curriculum agents.
In this a focus on Beck’s theories of risk society and reflexive modernity proved
useful in framing the global and individual aspects of research (Beck, 1992, 1994;
Elliott, 2001; Cohen, 2000; Hajer, 1995; Wetherell, 2000a, 2000b). Empirically, focus
on discursive positions in my own institutional D/discourses (Alvesson and
Kärreman, 2000; Emirbayer and Mische, 1998) was progressed through notions of
‘storylines’ and ‘’discourse coalitions’ suggested by Hajer (1995; Elliott, 2001).
In order to engage with data as texts, linguistic, semiotic and narrative analytical
tools were used to look at curriculum and sustainability as ‘floating signifiers’ or
‘nodal points’ filled with different meanings. In a process that was inherently driven
by personal challenge, postecological and curriculum interpretative repertoires were
utilised in critique of the symbolic nature of curriculum and sustainability, and their
continued hegemonic influence (Gramsci, 1971; Blühdorn, 2002; Wetherell, 2001a;
Beck 1994; Gruenewald, 2004; Hökkä et al, 2010; Zeyer and Roth, 2011) on and in
HE. My final focus was linked to discursive constructions of agency, involving a shift
of mindset to the languages of possibility and this self-reflexive engagement with the
194
process as a whole (Peschl, 2007; Caldwell, 2007) as ‘decentred agent’ with the
possibility of ‘making a difference’ (Lash, 1994, 2003; Giddens, 1984 cited in
Caldwell, 2007:2). Re-viewing the process and attention to my ‘own agentic
orientations’ and their ‘imaginative recomposition and critical judgement’ (Emirbayer
and Mische, 1998:1010) is as noted the emphasis of this chapter.
In my approach I believe this thesis has offered a distinct and original contribution to
knowledge in terms of the development and application of postmodern, poststructural
and postecological D/discourse theory into empirical D/discourse analysis (Hajer,
1995; Alvesson and Kärreman, 2000; Zeyer and Roth, 2011). Using the concept of
D/discourse as a way of focusing on the language of curriculum as ‘language in use’
(Wetherell, 2001a; Reis and Roth, 2007) has provided ways of reconstructing the
contested nature of curriculum, sustainability and agency in my own professional
context (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985; Becher and Trowler, 2001; Hajer, 1995; Tregidga
et al, 2011) that could foster educational and political analysis and further collegial
dialogue. In this therefore I sought to go beyond more general articulations of what
sort of curriculum should, or might, be involved in relation to sustainability (Tregidga
et al, 2011; Biesta and Tedder, 2006) to a suggested construction of how individuals
abilities, educational curriculum and environmental issues are discursively related
(Coate, 2007; Biesta and Tedder, 2006; Alkire, 2008), that has, I hope further
developed this emergent field of empirical research and understanding (Chouliaraki,
2008; Emirbayer and Mische, 1998; Hajer, 1995; Keller, 2013). Poststructural
D/discourse analysis also involved ‘broader concerns of social psychology,
particularly the psychology of sharing and of social freedom’ (Sen, 2013:18) and ‘the
capacity for willed (voluntary) action’ (Biesta and Tedder, 2006:5; Emirbayer and
Mische, 1998; Caldwell, 2007). In this a reflexive challenge was useful in highlighting
195
the potentially empowering nature of D/discourse analytic research in focusing on my
own position, perspective and purposes through attention to Peschl’s (2007) ‘U-
theory’.
As a person, learner and researcher I have felt, throughout the process and in
practice, something of a postmodern ‘bricoleur’ (Denzin and Lincoln, 2011: 4; Usher
and Edwards, 1994; Scott and Gough, 2001), a ‘jack-of-all-trades’ [and some might
add master of none], adopting interpretative, narrative, theoretical and political
positions using ‘whatever strategies, methods, and empirical tools’ were available.
For me this seemed entirely appropriate given the poststructural and constructionist
lenses adopted, and the post or reflexive modern context in which I studied. As such
my approach as epistemic dance has produced something of a montage, a
discursive narrative that itself has personal, relational, spatial and temporal
dimensions and qualities. This has involved a measure of creativity in my
methodological approach to D/discourse analysis that can contribute to the needed if
growing body of literature in the field. In many ways the idea of reaching conclusions
feels somewhat out of place both paradigmatically and educationally, and I am not
sure I have many conclusions but rather further questions and uncertainties, and
plans of action.
Drawing on poststructuralism and D/discourse theories (Laclau & Mouffe, Jørgensen
and Phillips, 2002; Hajer, 1995; Dryzec, 1997; Fairclough, 2001; Wetherell, 2001a,
2001b, 2009; Sylvestre et al, 2013; Iversen, 2014) enabled a de-centred approach
that was helpful in moving from a normative to an empirical and self-challenging
focus in reflexive inquiry, important given my bias for sustainability as a core concept
in curriculum development noted in my introduction. This was furthered through
196
employment of objectifying techniques (Thompson, 1984; Jørgensen and Phillips,
2002) moving away from personalising accounts as more interpretivist ‘truths’
(Schwandt, 2003; Bourdieu, 1977; Karol and Gale, 2004; (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985;
Orr, 2009) . Involving notions of the argumentative nature of D/discourse also
enabled political and educational diversity and agency to be considered (Hajer, 1995;
Dryzec, 1997; Ahearn, 2001; Alvesson and Kärreman, 2000).
From the outset my epistemological positions in poststructural D/discourse analysis
has been open about the constructed, provisional, incomplete and tentative nature of
my inquiry linked ontologically to similar recognition of imperfection and questioning
of knowledge and truth (Jørgensen and Phillips, 2002). Through this lens, more
conventional measures of goodness, of reliability, validity, and generalizability or
replicability, are seen as inappropriate. Notions of credibility and plausability,
dependability, confirmability, coherence and authenticity have been considered more
applicable (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Guba and Lincoln, 1989; Potter and Wetherell,
1994; Seale, 2012). In attempting to highlight particular relationships between
methods and claims both within my own internal conversations, helped by keeping
memos, and for the reader I have sought where possible to be transparent and open
enhancing it is hoped a sense of trustworthiness and descriptive and interpretive
validity (Seale, 1999: 486, 2012). Analytic and reflexive self-critique has
foregrounded and challenged my own position and allegiance to sustainability
although my analysis could still be questioned in this light as well as in terms of
sampling (Fairclough, 2003; Flick, 2002; Denscombe, 2007). Analysis has also been
interpretive, personal and as such has rested on my own limitations of knowledge,
reading and writing. I hope however, that rigour in the process is evident to the
reader.
197
Given the institutional and argumentative focus of analysis (Hajer, 1995; Dryzec,
1997; Harré et al, 1999), Guba and Lincoln (1989) and Seale (1999, 2012;
Golafshani, 2003) suggested a range of politically sensitive measures of quality,
stressing inclusivity and fairness within the process, and a number of ‘authenticities’
that should be present in relation to the practice of research. While I could not
necessarily link these approaches in relation to colleagues involved, they were useful
in my agentic consideration of the process (Caldwell, 2007; Slaughter, 2004:
Emirbayer and Mische, 1998; Peschl, 2007). In terms of ontological authenticity, I
believe as noted above that I have developed more sophisticated understandings of
the topic, my organisation, this research approach and myself, although suggest this
to be epistemic given my poststructural and constructionist stance. My
argumentative approach to D/discourse analysis lent itself to a measure of educative
authenticity making me more attentive to and understanding of alternative
perspectives and positions, and colleagues also expressed learning from the
process, although I neglected to ask in what ways. In terms of catalytic and tactical
authenticity, Peschl’s (2007) U-theory and notions of agency have prompted change
in existing discourse although this has been experienced as limited at this time
(Seale, 2012: 488-9), it is hoped that this work will open up lines of dialogue, and
further attention to my own and others discursive practices as I dance on, hopefully.
Analysis of Strategy documents (Learning and Teaching Strategies, 2005-2009 and
2010-2014) utilising linguistic, semiotic and rhetorical techniques paying attention to
orders of D/discourse (Hajer, 1995; Fairclough, 1995, 2001; Jørgensen and Phillips,
2002; Sylvestre et al, 2013) and associated tools highlighted comparatively
changing narratives, linguistic patterns and omissions and semiotic devices that
could be suggested to maintain more widespread hegemonic discursive orders that
198
work to preserve dominant curriculum models. These ‘technical’ (Kelly, 1989),
‘vocational/neoclassical’ (Kemmis et al, 1983), ‘functionalist’ (Askew and Carnell,
1998), and ‘global competitive’ (Selby, 1999, 2005) models and instructivist or
transmissive pedagogical approaches potentially position staff as scientific and
technical experts, students as passive and ‘malleable objects’ and learning as linear,
technical rational featuring disciplinary learning and transference (Kelly, 1989:62;
Bracher, 2006; McKernan, 2008). This is viewed as an inherently unsustainable
curriculum model (Huckle, 1999; Cortese, 2003; Sterling, 2001; Selby, 1999, 2005)
that maintains an industrial mindset and risk, stifles criticism and does not question
our relationships with nature. Social purpose noted as part of institutional identity was
also discursively constructed in strategic curriculum texts highlighting Discourses that
emphasised liberal progressive, client-centred or learner-centred models (Carr, 1998;
Kemmis et al, 1983; Jickling, 2003; Scott and Gough, 2007; Selby, 2005; Askew and
Carnell, 1998; McKernan, 2008). Here a more reformist, humanistic model could be
linked to an emphasis on student agency (Heilbroner, 1985; Emirbayer and Mische,
1998; Biesta and Tedder, 2006; Jickling, 2005) which in calls for teacher neutrality
(Scott and Gough, 2007) however could fail to draw attention to sustainability by
‘omission’, and focus on the learner can thwart their agency through a sense of
isolation in the learning process (Huckle, 2008).
This painted a potentially gloomy picture for the D/discourses of more sustainability
oriented curriculum models – particularly critical and poststructural - finding a home
in this environment. More challenging was recognition that my own texts reflected
this hegemonic position in terms of both the textual articulations themselves and the
practices [assessment] that seemed to emanate from it highlighting the
functional/action oriented nature of D/discourse (Potter and Wetherell, 1998). Here
199
D/discourse could be seen to position knowledge, learning and teaching and fill these
‘floating signifiers’ and ‘nodal points’ (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985; Tregidga et al, 2013;
Jørgensen and Phillips, 2002) with meanings linked to more global emphases as
Discourse (Alvessen and Kärreman). Critiqued in terms of risk ‘culture’ (Lash, 2000)
and reflexive modernity, these maintain issues and uncertainties socially and
individually. In terms of agency, risk is said to depersonalise, disempower and
engage individuals in new levels of self–critique or ‘reflexive modernity’ (Beck, 1992,
1994, 1998, 2008; Giddens, 1990) and this was certainly the impression formed in
the process. For Bauman (2005) a constantly changing ‘liquid life’ (2005: 2) is based
in consumption and confession (2005, 2007), where personal identities are shared
and opened up to public questioning and multiple sources of ‘expert’ advice, rather
as in this thesis perhaps, and I remained attentive to self as both researcher and
researched .
At the same time this approach alerted me to the power of D/discourse analysis in
diminishing the realist sense of closure with a loose sense of structuring (Wetherell,
2001b) that, in the possibility of multiple interpretations, forms the shifting sands of
discursive practice and demands ongoing decision-making and identity formation
within contexts of economic, socio-cultural and environmental insecurity. Having to
permanently decide between articulations of curriculum and sustainability certainly
adds weight to the pertinence of theories of risk and reflexive modernity in
contemporary HE (Beck, 1992, 1994, 1998, 2008; Giddens, 1994; Lash, 1994, 2000)
and the inherent tensions this might create for more sustainable curriculum
development in a knowledge society (Cochrane and Williams, 2011; Sousa, 2011;
Brown, 2011). Here I moved beyond dualism involving notions hegemonic
domination and resistance to one inclusive of notions of chaos, indifference and
200
freedom (Harré and Van Langenhove, 2010). Control and domination can never be
fully secured because of agency in part achieved through ‘consideration of the more
fundamental, ethical, psychological and spiritual responses needed to cope with the
emerging ecological crises’ (Newman, 2009:100).
The second phase of textual analysis involve a single Sustainability Statement that
enabled a measure of eco-critical Discourse analysis (Harré et al, 1999; Stibbe,
2009; Sylvestre et al, 2013; Hajer, 1995; Dryzec, 1997; Blühdorn, 2002) using
Kellert’s (1993) environmental perspectives in what was conceptualised as an
informal curriculum document. This presented reinforcement of traditional curriculum
Discourses of HE, maintaining a people-nature dualism in educational terms, a
division between popular and high aesthetics and an emphasis on management,
measurement, technological fixing, market interaction and consumption, and
individual choice and responsibility. This could be read as nominalising
organisational or wider educational responsibility for problems or in taking action
(Fairclough, 2003; Porter, 2007; Sylvestre et al, 2013).
Hökkä et al (2010) and Zeyer and Roth (2011) were particularly helpful in carrying
me from textual analysis of Discourse to analysis of talk as discourse (Alvesson and
Kärreman, 2000) further highlighting links between the local and wider including
global ways of speaking through attention to interpretative repertoires (Wetherell,
2001a, 2001b, 2009). Through this lens the critical and realist nature of institutional
discourses of unsustainability was seen a particularly problematic in maintaining,
despite uncertainty, dominant articulations of failure of any attempts to promote
positive change (Sousa, 2011). Hicks (2010: 13) draws on Heron (1999) to discuss
the ways in which our anxieties ‘embrace both the personal and the planetary’ that
201
through dissonance and denial ‘creates blind spots and zones of self- deception’ at
individual, organisational, national and global levels. This certainly resonated with
my own interpretative analysis as noted.
As an interesting aside, and there have been many, Norgaard (2006 cited in Hicks,
2010: 12) found educators, men and public figures to be most prone to ‘emotional
management techniques’ making it ‘impossible’ for people to engage in any
discussion or social activism in relation to global warming’. I had noted, in my own
analysis gendered notions of such ‘emotional intelligence’ in a discourse of
avoidance and for me this would be an interesting avenue for future D/discourse
analytic research, among so many others considered in the process. My growing
confidence in using particular D/discourse analytic approaches has instilled a sense
that I want to ask others to dance with me in further inquiry. I shall take steps to seek
out colleagues locally and globally, and of course look for funding, to pursue shared
interests.
In moving from Discourse to discourse and back again, I could see how in many
ways we were creating or constructing the issues we discussed and in this
maintaining and perpetuating a view of curriculum, each other and the world that we
did not necessarily want to or believe in. The pessimistic narrative reinforced
articulations of angst and fundamentalism in curriculum and agentic terms, in a
storyline (Hajer, 1995) of dangerous knowledge, puritanism and exclusivity (Bowers,
1993, 1995; Jickling, 1992) that it was said disempowered students, creating a space
where they were frequently told what they could not do leaving them increasingly
uncertain about what they could (Beck, 1994; Bracher, 2006; Blühdorn, 2002). As
Bracher notes, this can also, through processes of transference and othering within
202
such discourses, alienate students and colleagues generating institutional violence
through potential humiliation and punishment, and cultural violence through the
promotion of certain qualities and ideals. In many ways the use of postecological
interpretative repertoires highlighted discourses of agency attached to
environmentalism and sustainability as abnormal and unlikely to succeed. This, in
light of my own concerns regarding my promotion of sustainability was particularly
pertinent to the reflexive process at the heart of my study.
Throughout this thesis, organisational focus on and empirical analysis of
D/discourses of curriculum and sustainability involved a reflexive process of
ontological, epistemological and existential challenge inspired by notions of
[decentred] agency (Caldwell, 2007; Emirbayer and Mische, 1998; Ahearn, 2001;
Sen, 2007) and triple-loop or transformative learning (Peschl, 2007; Mezirow et al,
2000; Sterling, 2004; Slaughter, 2004. As such I attended to personal and academic
descriptions of self in earlier sections of my thesis with this chapter engaging in ideas
of redescription at the ‘end’ of this process.
For Bonnett (2004: 46) such redescription of ourselves and our world is important in
trying to find ‘more interesting’ and ‘more fruitful’ ways of speaking about
sustainability, and Stables and Scott (2001:275) suggest, drawing on Rorty, that
there are opportunities for ‘progress’ through attention to such concerns in the
absence of epistemological certainty. The authors continue:
We must have our regulative ideals (truth, beauty, nature,
sustainability), but we are often most effective in acting on them
when we abandon attempts at absolute and enduring understanding
and do what we can to act on them contingently….. Given that our
thinking is constrained by the problematisation of the old, easy
assumption of possible concensus, and must be done in the context
203
of varied and shifting cultural perceptions and practices, we can
make only tentative, short-term and conjectural statements about
how to move to a more post-humanist curriculum that might result in
greater care for ecology and the environment.
While my mind remains ‘awash with uncertainty’ (Kagawa and Selby, 2008), and this
has felt uncomfortable from an academic and research position at times, from a
professional position I have reached a number of points of ‘crytallisation’ along the
way about my own views and suggestions of plans that I may take into future
research and practice for ‘testing’ (Peschl, 2007; Mezirow, 2003; Sterling, 2010-11;
Slaughter, 2004). I considered Eliot’s lines as pertinent in highlighting my sense of
this renewed institutional construction.
We shall not cease from exploration And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time. T.S. Eliot -- "Little Gidding" (the last of his Four Quartets)
My own values and attitudes towards sustainability, social justice and individual
responsibility have not necessarily been transformed by the process, but have been
challenged and through focused attention I have had to answer those challenges in
light of institutional and agentic reconstructions. As a dance partner my grip has
loosened on the concept of sustainability as a master signifier, in part through
recognition that my own language games in its name have themselves been prone to
lexical poverty and political and normative rhetoric. In this I potentially close down
alternative ways of speaking and writing, reinforce hegemonic curriculum Discourses
and restrict the possibilities for discovering more sustainable ways of life.
204
Rather than closure, I still believe sustainability holds potential for open, dialogic and
agentic engagement that can be profoundly educative, if I remain alive to listening to
discursive diversity and can become multilingual. Recognition of discursive
coalitions and multiple cultural configurations within HE institutions, suggests a
‘market gardening’ rather than an ‘agribusiness’ approach in discursive practice and
curriculum development (Trowler, 2010: 4). My developing discursive literacy will I
think prove useful in engaging with colleagues more effectively and confidently. If
as noted ‘most organisational change heavily relies on discursive processes, such as
[re]definition, [re]labelling, or [re]interpretation’, or ‘discursive manoeuvring’ (Zelle,
2009:6 also Fairclough, 2000, 2001), I believe this is an important lesson that I have
started to learn.
Another useful aspect of this research echoing Laclau (1990: 44; Howarth, 2013: 4)
was my involvement in a process where the goal was not to try to understand what
curriculum, sustainability or agency is but more a focus on ‘what prevents it from
being’. As noted in my analysis and discussion I had left little space for language
games or inaction (Peschl, 2007) as a result of this process and in my developing
understanding of context, increased readiness to question and bring to light my own
sense of ‘self’ and positioning of others I have had to engage with where I stood,
what for and what I could do about it (Biesta, 2005; Bracher, 2006).
The emphasis on ecological and critical realism constructed from interpretative
analysis of talk seemed to maintain pessimism that was systemic and agentic, as
noted above, and in this light I wonder if there is a need to move beyond socially
critical curriculum models, and attendant realist tendencies (Huckle, 2004) and
D/discourses that can maintain pessimism, political paralysis and emotional despair
205
that accompanies fear of/and risk (Freire, 1992; Beck, 1994; Ahearn, 2001). My
reflexive and agentic attention will now extend my knowledge and enactment of
poststructural approaches in curriculum development, and develop D/discourse
analytic teaching resources as learning tools, in the context of educational
sustainability, that are potentially more in step with a language of possibility and
enactment of agency (Ahearn, 2001, Alkire, 2008; Biesta and Tedder, 2006). Here
as throughout I am open to challenge and change.
I sense that institutionally we need a language of hope, although this may be the
most difficult thing to change certainly in isolation (Sen, 2007). Freire suggested this
to be an ontological need, and given my ‘findings’ or more my ‘feelings’ I would
agree:
I do not understand human existence, and the struggle needed to improve it, apart from hope and dream. Hope is an ontological need. Hopelessness is but hope that has lost its bearings, and become a distortion of that ontological need … Hence the need for a kind of education in hope. One of the tasks of the progressive educator…is to unveil opportunities for hope, no matter what the obstacles might be (Freire, 1994: 2-3).
Despite any ‘evidence’ to the contrary I remain hopeful rather than idealistic I feel. In
my increased recognition of uncertainty and discursive diversity I have become more
aware not only of the constraints imposed by D/discourse but also a sense of
possibility. As Karlberg notes, through conscious commitment and effort, we can
change the discourses that surround us, over time (Karlberg, 2008:311; Stibbe,
2009). Here I sense Orr’s (2009) notion of ‘realistic hope’ as something which:
requires us to check our optimism at the door and enter the future without illusions. It requires a level of honesty, self-awareness, and sobriety that is difficult to summon and maintain. I know a great many
206
smart people and many very good people, but I know far fewer people who can handle hard truth gracefully without despairing...Authentic hope, in other words, is made of sterner stuff than optimism. It must be rooted in the truth as best we can see it, knowing that our vision is always partial. Hope requires the courage to reach farther, dig deeper, confront our limits and those of nature, and work harder (Orr, 2009: 184-85; also cited in Hicks, 2010:15).
It is with these words that I begin a new dance.
207
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Excerpt from Framing and Structure Analysis
Learning and Teaching Strategy Initial THOUGHTS
2005-2009 2010-14 Being reviewed 2014/15
Framing
From we will be to we are.. arrival through engagement with markets… and sustainability of/through these relationships?
Change of Leadership and government, change of staff but representative of cultural shifts - explanations keep springing to mind !! It does not feel ‘objective’ in the sense of removing myself.
Earlier/ broader for me sounds more ESD although limited rhetorical statement.
Further framing via reference to other strategies [named] clearer articulation in terms of intertextuality
LT2 confident, market oriented shift supported by seven key aims [from Strategic Plan] ‘learning for life’ holds potential but preceding and subsequent market orientation strengthened in structure. Sustainable futures noted although in a less than light green frame… shift to participation at the end
‘We will be the Community University College of the South West, providing high quality, holistic, enabling and supportive learning, teaching and research opportunities to meet the needs of individuals, groups, the region and beyond’
“As a high quality and vibrant higher education institution with a strong community focus, providing learning and opportunity for local, regional, national and international markets our mission is to provide ‘learning for life’
underpinned by seven key aims to:
Provide high quality learning programmes and work towards the achievement of university title through accessible and vocationally orientated learning to meet the needs of individuals and communities
Achieve excellence in learning and teaching through the provision of high quality and intellectually challenging applied professional and vocational learning opportunities underpinned by advanced scholarship and applied research
Provide high quality student support enabling students to reach their full personal and professional potential and equipping them for employment and further study
Deliver sustainable futures through the promotion of good leadership and effective management and solutions, both in terms of cost and performance, in all activities
Be inclusive and accessible, supporting those able to benefit from higher education irrespective of background, beliefs and views and ensuring equality of opportunity
Working creatively in partnership with people, employers and communities, contributing to their social, cultural and economic development through encouraging
208
participation in University activities and supporting progression through the different levels of higher education
Build capacity and good practice in research emphasising applied research and enterprise and knowledge exchange and working with a wide range of partners
209
Appendix 2: Comparing Aims of Strategic Plans 2005-2010 [abridged] and 2010-15
‘Aim for excellence in learning and teaching, gaining
and maintaining the highest possible levels of
external confidence in our quality of provision and
sustaining an enabling and supportive student-
centred learning community’ and
‘Maintain and develop an attractive, high quality,
campus estate and create a modern information
infrastructure that can meet future expectation in
learning and teaching’
1. To provide high quality modules and programmes which promote excellence and innovation in learning and teaching, scholarship and research, professional and inter-professional training.
2. To develop flexible, inclusive and accessible learning opportunities which meet the needs of a changing student body.
3. To prepare students for their future employment / study through the development of appropriate knowledge and understanding, intellectual skills, practical skills, and, key and transferable skills.
4. To provide high quality educational facilities to support and enhance the learning environment.
5. To integrate education for sustainable development into the curriculum.
Key
Shift in framing
Same words
Greater emphasis on sustainability in curriculum added 2014
Perhaps similar intent
New? – skills [not comparable?]
210
Appendix 3: Second Dance with Analysis of Learning and Teaching Strategies
Learning and Teaching Strategy 2005-09 Learning and Teaching Strategy 2011-15 Being reviewed 2014/15
‘We will be the Community University College of the ~~~~~~, providing high quality, holistic, enabling and supportive learning, teaching and research opportunities to meet the needs of individuals, groups, the region and beyond’ AIMS
1. To promote both excellence and innovation in learning and teaching, scholarship and research, professional and inter-professional training and development
Develop innovative modules and programmes which reflect contemporary developments in learning, teaching and assessment, including e-learning [blended learning] and work-related experiences
Achieve highest possible quality in educational provision and have confidence in the academic standards
Ensure that scholarly and research activity underpins all aspects of learning and teaching
Promote leadership across the institution in both teaching and research
Recognise and reward staff who have demonstrated excellence in learning and teaching
Develop and disseminate good practice in learning, teaching and assessment
Encourage staff to forge links with appropriate external bodies [eg HEA]
Develop opportunities for knowledge exchange
Learning and Teaching Strategy 2010-14 Being reviewed 2014/15
“As a high quality and vibrant higher education institution with a strong community focus, providing learning and opportunity for local, regional, national and international markets our mission is to provide ‘learning for life’ AIMS
1. To provide high quality modules and programmes
which promote excellence and innovation in
learning and teaching, scholarship and research,
professional and inter-professional training.
Develop and extend the existing portfolio
of modules and programmes to reflect
contemporary disciplinary developments, which
are informed by scholarly and research activity
and applied professional practice
Develop learning and enterprise activities
through partnership and collaboration
Develop innovative approaches to
learning, teaching and assessment, making
extensive use of e-learning and work-related
activities
Promote and reward excellence,
innovation and leadership in learning and
teaching
Capture and disseminate good practice in
learning, teaching and assessment
Extend the expertise of all staff by
supporting continuing professional development
and external engagements with other HEIs,
subject associations, learned societies and
professional bodies
Key Differences in situ/changed position/removed
Similarities in situ Similarities changed position
Different or strong shift of emphasis Condensed but similar
211
Appendix 4: Chains of Equivalence and Difference between LT1 and LT2 – The Discourse of
Learning
Learning in LT1 only Learning in LT1/LT2 Learning in LT2 only
Experiential learning
Holistic learning
Learning for Competitiveness
Objective learning
Academic learning
High quality learning opportunities
Learning for work
Learning Skills
Flexible learning
Inclusive learning
Supported learning
Vocationally oriented learning
Vocationally relevant learning
Applied professional learning
Transformative learning
Intellectually challenging learning/advanced scholarship
Appropriate knowledge and understanding
Access to accurate information
Training
212
Appendix 5: Teaching – Positioning Academic Skills and Attributes [Exaggeration and
substitution]
‘You will be technologically literate, with cutting edge understanding and skills in service delivery. You must have sound business acumen and be effective market analysts with high levels of social capital. You will be flexible and strategic in planning and managing your work, maximising efficiency and effectiveness through ongoing professional development and technological innovation.
You will be inclusive, ethically aware and responsible, and develop the same qualities in your customers. You will possess excellent public relations skills and leadership qualities, enhancing customer satisfaction and repeat business. You will also develop and provide a sustainable development experience that will transform peoples’ lives’.
213
Appendix 6: Sustainable Education Curriculum Keywords in LT1 and LT2 (Sterling, 2010,
2011, 2014; Tilbury, 2011)
Keywords Missing
Keywords Changed
LT1
Sustainable
LT2
Sustainable x 4
Concepts
Interdependence
Citizenship and stewardship
Needs and rights
Diversity
Quality of Life, Equity and Justice
Sustainable change
Uncertainty and Precaution in Action
Needs x 3
Diverse
From Strategy:
Learning for life
Prepare for future challenges
Provide opportunities to critically
examine the nature and formation of
judgements in areas of prejudice, bias,
stereotyping
Recruit students [and staff] and to
enable them to become highly
qualified, creative, constructively
critical people, able to contribute to
the improvement of the human
condition
Needs x 5
Pedagogies
Active
Participative
Experiential
Holistic
Interdisciplinary
Values clarification
Ethical dimensions
Applied learning
Dimensions of Sustainability Literacy
Holistic Creative
Critical Systemic
Appreciative Ethical
Inclusive Practical
Experiential x 2
Critical x2
Values [not clarification]
Creative
Holistic
Inclusive x 3
Ethical
Applied learning
Ethical
Creative
Participation x 2
Inclusive x4
Practical x 2
Transformative
214
Appendix 7: Self Analysis: Programme Descriptor
BA (Hons) The ######### Programme aims to provide an academically challenging and intellectually rigorous course of learning that develops the skills and competencies relevant to the increasing professional opportunities for employment in educational and other professional contexts. Specifically, the programme aims to engage students with concepts of individual and social change and development, the nature of knowledge, and critical engagement with ways of knowing.
This programme will be of particular interest to those students wishing to pursue a career related to ………….or other related professions, here or abroad. In a ‘knowledge economy’ and with an emphasis on ‘lifelong learning’, education is seen to be of crucial importance for individuals and societies – potentially the most important thing for economic prosperity, social justice and a more sustainable future. Through active inquiry into contemporary …. issues, policies and debates surrounding the purpose and possibilities of education, students will develop their understanding, skills, and personal and professional identities.
215
Appendix 8: Re-articulation of Programme Descriptor
Original [### Framework]:
Specifically, the programme aims to engage students with concepts of individual and social change and development, the nature of knowledge, and critical engagement with ways of knowing. In a knowledge economy and with an emphasis on lifelong learning, education is seen to be of crucial importance – potentially the most important thing for economic prosperity, social justice and a more sustainable future. Removed. Through active inquiry into contemporary ……issues, policies and debates surrounding the purpose and possibilities of education, students will develop their understanding, skills, and personal and professional identities.
Reconstruction [### Framework, more recent addition]:
We aim to engage students with concepts of individual and social change and development, the nature of knowledge, and critical engagement with ways of knowing, with particular emphasis on ideas, issues and needs of students at this stage of their education. Through active inquiry into contemporary educational issues, policies and debates surrounding the purpose and possibilities of education, students will develop their understanding, skills, and personal and professional identities.
216
Appendix 9: Assessment [Level 4] Original and Revised Programme Descriptors
Programme ‘original’ ‘new articulation’
Assignments 6 Essays
2 Reviews
1 Group Presentation
1 Oral Presentation
6 Essays
2 Reviews
1 Poster/Blog
1 Reflective Journal
1 Portfolio
1 Presentation
1 Picture Book
217
Appendix 10: Graduate skills for employment
for SD Employers [as articulated by graduates]
Employers
The ability to communicate effectively both orally and in writing
Spoken communication Communication – both oral and written
The ability to think about systems [natural/social]
Problem solving To work strategically and operationally
The ability to work co-operatively with other people
The ability to work in teams Networking abilities
The ability to think critically about value issues
Leadership Awareness of current issues in relevant fields
The capacity to move from awareness to knowledge to action
Numeracy Teamwork
The ability to think in time – thinking ahead/planning
Creativity Potential ability to manage budgets
The capacity to use various processes – knowing, inquiring, acting, judging, imagining, connecting, valuing, questioning and choosing
Advanced IT skills [Good time management skills; problem-solving]
The capacity to develop an aesthetic response to the environment
[Ability to critically appraise situations and data; analytical ability and data analysis skills]
(UNESCO,2002: online; JPOI, 2002:online)
(Purcell and Elias, 2004) (Anderson and Mitchell, 2006)
218
Appendix 11: Sustainability Statement Analysis
How ‘green’ is ####### [accessed January, 2014)
‘Green’ is a much overused and badly defined term, sometimes used simply as a way of burnishing a corporation or institution’s image. So I think it is worthwhile setting out what we mean when we talk about being ‘green’. Claims we are not simply engaged in ‘greenwash’. [nominalisation]. Who is I, who is we? Speaking for institution….and offering a unified meaning of ‘green’. Strong modality. Use of active pronoun ‘we’, could also imply active sharing of reader in what follows..
At the University of ######## we have a green campus. It’s green as we are fortunate to have a fair amount of green grassy areas, such as the football and rugby playing fields. We have a large grassy area in the centre of the campus, the Quad, which comes in handy for picnics, setting up the marquee for SU events and just generally relaxing in the sun between lectures. We have a duck pond and a woodland area, allotments and an orchard and all around the site there are trees and flowers and wildlife from butterflies to bats and dragonflies to deer (they’ve eaten the lettuce on my allotment more than once). So if by ‘green’ we mean somewhere with lots of open space with plants and wildlife then ##### is certainly a green campus. Colloquial, friendly approach links to campus as ‘green’ and in terms of biodiversity. Links green to sports ‘fields’ although not terribly ‘green’ in terms of biodiversity perhaps. Links to utility, aesthetics, ‘relaxing in the sun between lectures’ separation of education [work] and leisure [pleasure], image of sunshine, focus on lectures further divorces learning from environment and pleasure while reinforcing a traditional notion of HE?
But what about ‘green’ in its usage as an environmental term. Well there are a number of factors that would affect how ‘green’ we are. To start with there is what we as an institution do to manage the impact we have on the environment and that can be broken down into a number of separate areas such as: Impact management. Light green, links with managerial discourse alongside traditional educational discourse.
Power –
Why does it matter? Well if all our power needs were met by renewable sources there would be no problem in consuming as much as we could afford. Links to renewable, consumption of what we can afford.. market interaction and nominalization – met by who? We could be running air con 24/7 and leave the lights blazing throughout the night. If we could afford? But since most of our power comes from fossil fuel, a finite resource we share with the rest of the world and the burning of which contributes to the production of greenhouse gases, the responsible thing is to not use more gas or electricity than you need too. Shift via object pronoun to individual reader to do the responsible thing? That means insulating your buildings, using efficient lighting and equipment and turning things off when they are not needed. Technological fixes and individual behavioural change needed on the part of the reader? So we have embarked on a programme of replacing lighting with the low power variety, updating boilers to more energy efficient versions and trying to raise our users awareness of their own power
219
consumption. Technical and raising awareness by those who are aware? Use of possessive pronoun as lexical device that nominalises organisations actions and weakens modality. Reinforces HE as site of knowledge to be passed on.
Waste –
We have removed all waste bins from our offices and instead positioned recycle and general waste bins all around the campus. This has the advantage of helping staff become more aware of the waste they produce another shift and rift and separating out recyclables at source and we no longer send any of our waste to landfill it all goes either for recycling or incinerating. Awareness of waste ‘they produce’ no longer we, lexical shift again. Division of labour in terms of process, measures taken. Benefits re recycling and incineration but does not challenge consumption, as above.
Fair Trade –
We have gained Fair Trade accreditation and continue to work hard to educate our consumers as to why this matters. Educate our consumers… discourse of the market and education for the market. We know why it matters?
But the largest impact on the ‘green agenda’ is not what the institution does it’s what we as individuals, staff and students, do both here at ##### and in our private lives. Shifting responsibility here ‘not what the institution does’ could absolve us from doing much at all. We all make choices and some of these choices will be’ green’ and some won’t. We choose how we travel, what we purchase, how we dispose of things we don’t want, how we use power and water and how we engage with the rest of society. notions of rational choice and individual responsibility.
So the answer to the question ‘How ‘green’ is #####?’ We’re greenish with a desire wish
or want rather than need to be greener. And the staff and students of #####, well they’re
object pronoun decentred self just like the rest of society and whether they become
greener will depend only partly on what we do here otherwise it’s a personal choice
contested prognosis, culpability and assumes equal choices? an individual makes after a
period of reflection or it’s forced on us by societal pressure or government decree. I’m
hoping for the personal choice option. Focus on individual further supported and
freedom of choice … society as enemy akin to government suggests top down threats to
individual choice are a problem and should be treated with suspicion. Symbolism,
utilitarian, managerial to technological optimism and moralistic behavioural stance.
Through this potential exclusion of alternative visions of ‘greenspeak’, and despite
emphasis on personal choice this sits in an antagonistic relationship with ‘managed
behaviour’ ie removal of bins.
220
References
Agger, B. (1991) Critical Theory, Poststructuralism, Postmodernism: Their
Sociological Relevance, Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 105-131.
Ahearn, L. A. (2001) Language and Agency, Annual Review of Anthropology,
30:109–37.
Akkari, A. and Dassen, P. R. (2008) Educational Theories and Practices from the
Majority World. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Alderson, P. (ed.) (2004) Doing Research with Children and Young People. London:
Sage Publications.
Alkire, S. (2008) Concepts and measures of agency. OPHI Working Paper 9,
University of Oxford.
Altheide, D. L. and Spencer, D. A. (2000), Cultural maintenance and narratives of
resistance in educational reform, in Denzin, N. K. (ed.) Studies in Symbolic
Interaction (Studies in Symbolic Interaction, Volume 23), Bingley: Emerald Group
Publishing Limited, pp.277 – 293.
Alvesson, M. and Kärreman, D. (2000) Varieties of Discourse: On the Study of
Organizations through Discourse Analysis, Human Relations, Vol. 53, No. 9: 1125-
1149.
Anderson, D. S. and Biddle, D. J. (eds.) (1991) Knowledge for Policy: Improving
Education Through Research. London: The Falmer Press.
221
Anderson, G. (1996) Fundamentals of Educational Research. London: The Falmer
Press.
Antaki, C. (ed.) (1988) Analysing Everyday Explanation: A Casebook of Methods.
London: Sage.
Apple, M. W. (2001) Comparing neo-liberal projects and inequality in education,
Comparative Education, Vol. 37, No. 4: 409-423.
Apple, M. W. (2004) Creating Difference: Neo-Liberalism, Neo-Conservatism and the
Politics of Educational Reform, Educational Policy, Vol. 18 No. 1, January and
March.
Arendt, H. (1977) Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought,
London: Penguin.
Askew, W. and Carnell, E. (1998) Transforming Learning: Individual and Global
Change. London: Cassell.
Atweh, B. and Heron, J. (1996) Co-operative Inquiry: Research into the human
condition. London: Sage Publications.
Ball, S. J. (ed.) (1991) Power, conflict, micro-politics and all that!, London: Routledge.
Barker, C. and Galasiński, D. (2008) Cultural Studies and Discourse Analysis: A
Dialogue on Language and Identity, London: Sage Publications.
Barnett, R. (1992) Improving Higher Education: Total Quality Care, Buckingham:
OUP.
222
Barth, M., Godemann, J., Rieckmann, M. and Stoltenberg, U. (2007) Developing key
competencies for sustainable development in higher education, International Journal
of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 416-430.
Barnes, P. M. and Hoerber, T. C. (2013) Sustainable Development and Governance
in Europe: The Evolution of the Discourse of Sustainability, Abingdon: Routledge.
Barnett, R. and Coates, K. (2005). Engaging the curriculum in higher education.
Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University
Press.
Baudrillard, J. (1987) Modernity. Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory.
Vol. 11, No. 3: 63-73.
Beaty, L. (1997) Developing Your Teaching Through Reflective Practice,
Birmingham: SEDA Publications.
Becher, T. and Trowler, R. (2001) Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual
Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines, Buckingham: OUP.
Beck, C. (1995) Postmodernism, Ethics and Moral Education pp 127-137 in Kohli, W.
(ed.) Critical Conversations in Philosophy of Education, London: Routledge.
Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: towards a new modernity, London: Sage Publications.
Beck, U. (1997) The Reinvention of Politics: Rethinking Modernity in the Global
Social Order, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck, U. (1998) Democracy without enemies. Cambridge: Polity Press.
223
Beck, U. (2000) What is Globalization? Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck, U. (2008) World at Risk, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beck, U. & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002) Individualization: institutionalized
individualism and its social and political consequences. London: Sage.
Beck, U., Giddens, A., and Lash, J. (1994) Reflexive Modernization: Politics,
Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bernstein, B. B. (1990) The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse. London: Routledge.
Best, S. and Kellner, D. (1991) Post-Modern Theory: Critical Interrogations, New
York: Guilford Press.
Biesta, G. J. J. (2005) ‘Against learning: Reclaiming a language for education in an
age of learning’, Nordisk Pedagogik Vol. 25, pp.54-66.
Biesta, G. J. J. (2006) Beyond learning: Democratic education for a human future,
Boulder Co: Paradigm Publishers.
Biesta, G. J. J. (2007) Bridging the gap between educational research and
educational practice: The need for critical distance, Educational Research and
Evaluation, 13(3), 295-301.
Biesta, G. J. J. (2011) Disciplines and theory in the academic study of education: A
Comparative Analysis of the Anglo-American and Continental Construction of the
Field. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, Vol. 19, No. 2: 175-192.
224
Biesta, G. J. J. and Tedder, M. (2006) How is agency possible? Towards an
ecological understanding of agency-as-achievement, Working paper 5. Exeter: The
Learning Lives project.
Billig, M. (1991) Ideology and Opinions: Studies in Rhetorical Psychology, London:
Sage Publications.
Bingham, A. (2010) Discourse of the Dammed: A study of the impacts of sustainable
development discourse on indigenous peoples in the Brazilian Amazon in the context
of the proposed Belo Monte hydroelectric dam. POLIS Journal, Volume 4, Winter.
Blake, J., Sterling, S. and Kagawa, F. (2013), Getting it Together: Interdisciplinarity
and Sustainability in the Higher Education Institution, Plymouth: PedRio.
Blewitt, J., (2008) Understanding Sustainable Development, London: Earthscan.
Blewitt, J. (2004) Sustainability and Lifelong Learning, pp. 24-42 in Blewitt, J. and
Cullingford, C. (eds.) The Sustainability Curriculum: The Challenge for Higher
Education, London: Earthscan.
Bloomer, M. (1999) On the Subject of Interpretivism: Notes, Exeter: University of
Exeter.
Blühdorn, I. (2002) Unsustainability as a Frame of Mind-and How We Disguise It:
The Silent Counter-revolution and the Politics of Simulation, The Trumpeter, Vol. 18,
No. 1, 59-69.
225
Blühdorn, I. and Welsh, I. (2007) Eco-politics beyond the paradigm of sustainability:
A conceptual framework and research agenda. Environmental Politics, Volume 16,
Issue 2, 185-205.
Blumer, H. (1969) Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Boboc, M. (2012) The Postmodern Curriculum in a Modern Classroom, International
Journal of Education, Vol. 4, No 1.
Bolton, G. (2010) Reflective Practice: Writing and Professional Development, (3rd
ed.), London: Sage Publications.
Bonnett, M. (2004) Retrieving Nature: education in a post-humanist age, London:
Blackwell.
Borne, G. (2013) Exploring Discourses of Sustainable Development: A Flexible
Framework, Methodological Innovations Online, 8(2), 90-106, retrieved from
http://www.methodologicalinnovations.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Borne.pdf
[accessed 2.8.14].
Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge: CUP.
Bourdieu, P. (1990) The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bowers, C. A. (1995) ‘Toward an Ecological Perspective’ in Kohli, W. (ed.) Critical
Conversations in Philosophy of Education, London: Routledge.
226
Bowers, C. A. (2003) Mindful Conservatism: Rethinking the Ideological and
Educational Basis of an Ecologically Sustainable Future, USA: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers.
Bracher, M. (2006) Radical Pedagogy: Identity, Generativity and Social
Transformation. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Brennan, A. (1991) Environmental Awareness and Liberal Education, British Journal
of Educational Studies, 39, 279-296.
Brennan, A. (1994) Environmental Literacy and Educational Ideal, Environmental
Values, 3, No.1, 3-16.
Brennan, J. (2010) Introduction, in Brennan, J. (ed.) Higher Education and Society: a
research report. Retrieved from http://www.open.ac.uk/cheri/pages/CHERI-Reports-
2011.shtml [accessed 3.7.13]
Brennan, J. (2011) ‘Higher Education and Social Change: Researching the ‘End
Times’, pp. 6-12 in Brennan, J. and Shah, T. (2011) Higher Education and Society in
Changing Times: Looking Back and Looking Forward. Retrieved from
https://www.open.ac.uk/cheri/documents/Lookingbackandlookingforward.pdf
[accessed 23.10.12].
Brookfield, S. D. (1987) Developing Critical Thinkers: Challenging Adults to Explore
Alternative Ways of Thinking and Acting. Buckingham: OUP.
Brown, R. (2011) Looking back, looking forward: the changing structure of UK higher
education, 1980-2012, pp. 13-23 in Brennan, J. and Shah, T. (eds) Higher Education
227
and Society in Changing Times: looking back and looking forward. CHERI, retrieved
from http://www.open.ac.uk/cheri/pages/CHERI-Reports-2011.shtml [accessed
21.4.14].
Brown, D. L., Bammer, G., Batliwala, S. and Kunreuther, F. (2003) Framing practice-
research engagement for democratizing knowledge. Action Research. Vol. 1, No. 1:
10-81.
Browne, J. (2010) Securing a Sustainable Future for Higher Education: An
Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance, retrieved
from www.independent.gov.uk/browne-report [accessed 21-5-12].
Cade, C.A. (2008) Employable Graduates for Responsible Employers, retrieved
from:
www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/ourwork/tla/sustainability/Employable
Graduates2008.pdf [accessed 24/03/09]
Caldwell, R. (2007) Agency and Change: Re-evaluating Foucault’s Legacy,
Organization, Volume 14(6).
Carneiro, R. (2011) ‘Discovering the Treasure of Learning’, pp. 3-23 in Yang, J. and
Valdés-Cotera, R., Conceptual Evolution and Policy Developments in Lifelong
Learning, Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning.
Carr, W. (1995) For Education: Towards Critical Educational Inquiry, Buckingham:
Open University.
Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1986), Becoming Critical. London: Falmer.
228
Carpentier, N. and Cammaerts, B. (2006) Hegemony, democracy, agonism and
journalism: an interview with Chantal Mouffe. Journalism Studies, 7 (6).
Charmaz, K. (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through
Qualitative Analysis, London: Sage Publications.
Chomsky, N. (2000) Chomsky on MisEducation, (edited and introduced by Donaldo
Macedo), New York: Rowan and Littlefield.
Chouliaraki, L. (2008) Discourse Analysis, pp 674-698 in Bennett, T; Frow, J. (eds.),
The SAGE Handbook of Cultural Analysis, London: Sage Publications.
Chouliaraki, L. and Fairclough, N. (1999) Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking
Critical Discourse Analysis, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Clarke, N. (2012) Report of the first sustainability in mathematics education working
group, in Smith, C. (ed.) Informal Proceedings of the British Society for Research into
Learning Mathematics, 32(1) March, retrieved from http://www.bsrlm.org.uk/IPs/ip32-
1/BSRLM-IP-32-1-03.pdf [accessed 2.3.13].
Claxton, G. (2005) The Wayward Mind: An Intimate History of the Unconscious,
London: Little Brown.
Coate, K. (2009) ‘Curriculum’, pp. 77-90 in M. Tight, K.H. Mok, J. Huisman and C.C.
Morphew (eds.) The Routledge International Handbook of Higher Education, New
York: Routledge.
Cochrane, A. and Williams, R. (2010) ‘The role of higher education in social and
cultural transformation’, pp. 20-27 in Brennan, J. (ed) Higher Education and Society:
229
a research report. Retrieved from http://www.open.ac.uk/cheri/pages/CHERI-
Reports-2011.shtml [accessed 2.4.13].
Coffield, F. and Williamson, B. (eds.) (1997) Repositioning Higher Education. Oxford:
OUP.
Cohen, M. J. (1997) Risk Society and Ecological Modernisation: Alternative visions
for post-industrial nations, Futures, Vol. 29. No. 2. pp. 105-119.
Connelly, J. and Smith, G. (2003) Politics and the Environment: From Theory to
Practice (2nd edition), London: Routledge.
Connelly, F. M. and Xu, S. J. (2007) On the state of curriculum studies. A personal
practical inquiry, Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue. Vol. 9, No. 1-2: 3-19.
Corcoran, P. B. and Wals, A. E. J. (eds.) Higher Education and the Challenge of
Sustainability, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Cornwall, A. (2010) Introductory overview – buzzwords and fuzzwords:
deconstructing development discourse, pp. 1-18 in Cornwall, A. and Eade, D. (eds.)
(2010) Deconstructing Development Discourse Buzzwords and Fuzzwords, Oxford:
Oxfam.
Cortese, A. (2003) The Critical Role of Higher Education in Creating a Sustainable
Future, Planning for Higher Education, 31, 3, 15-22.
Cotton, D. R., Warren, M. F., Maiboroda, O. and Bailey, I. (2007) Sustainable
Development, Higher Education and Pedagogy: A study of lecturers' beliefs and
attitudes, Environmental Education Research. Vol. 13, No. 5: 15-22.
230
Cowan, J. K. and Dembour, M-B. (eds.) (2007) Culture and Rights: Anthropological
Perspectives, Cambridge: CUP.
Cromby, J. (2007) Integrating Social Science with Neuroscience: Potentials and
Problems, BioSocieties, 2(2), pp. 149-169.
Crotty, M. (1998) The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in
the Research Process, London: Sage Publications.
Crowther, J. (2004) ‘What does lifelong learning do to the discourse of participation?’,
Paper presented a SCRUTEA, 34th Annual Conference, University of Sheffield, UK,
6-8 July 2004.
Crush, J. (1995) Imaging Development, pp. 1-26 in Crush, J. (ed.) Power of
Development, London: Routledge
Dale, A. and Newman, L. (2005) Sustainable development, education and literacy,
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 6, Issue 4, pp. 351 –
362.
Davies, B. (2000) A Body of Writing, 1990-1999, Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield.
Davies, L. (2003) Education and Conflict: Complexity and Chaos. London:
Routledge.
Davies, L. (2011) Conflict, Education and Democracy: Learning the Power of Dissent
Conflict and Education, Vol 1, No1.
231
Davies, B. and Harré, R. (1990) Positioning: The Discursive Production of Selves.
Theory of Social Behaviour. Vol. 20, No. 1: 43-63.
Dawe, G., Jucker, R. and Martin, S. (2005) ‘Sustainable Development in Higher
Education: Current Practice and Future Developments: A Report for The Higher
Education Academy’. [Online] retrieved from:
www.heacademy.ac.uk/misc/executivesummary.pdf [accessed 23.3.07].
Dearing, R. (1997) The National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education. A
summary report. Retrieved from http://wwww.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/docsinde.htm
[accessed 25.3.07].
DEFRA. (2003) Learning to Last: The Government’s Sustainable Development
Education Strategy for England, retrieved from
www.defra.gov.uk/environment/sustainable/educpanel/index.htm [accessed 12.3.04].
Denscombe, M. (2007) The good research guide : for small-scale social research
projects, Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Denzin, N. K. (1970) The Research Act in Sociology, London: Butterworth.
Denzin, N. K. (2010) Studies in Symbolic Interaction, Volume 23. (1st ed.), Bingley:
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.) (2000) Handbook of Qualitative Research
(2nd ed.), Thousand Oaks, Cal: Sage Publications.
Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2003) The Landscape of Qualitative Research:
Theories and issues, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
232
Denzin, N. K.and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds) (2005) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative
Research. (3rd ed.), London: Sage Publications.
Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2011) ‘Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of
Qualitative Research’ pp 1-20 in Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.) The Sage
Handbook of Qualitative Research. (4th ed.), London: Sage Publications.
Dewey, J. (1933 [1997]) Experience and Education. New York: Macmillan.
Dickstein, D.M. (1998) Community in the Pragmatic Tradition. (3rd ed.) United
States: Duke University press.
Dickens, P. (1996) Reconstructing Nature, Alienation, Emancipation and the Division
of Labour, London: Routledge.
Dillabough, J. and Halsey, A. H. (2006) Education, Globalization and Social Change,
Oxford: OUP.
Dobson, A. (1999) Fairness and Futurity: Essays on Environmental Sustainability
and Social Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dresner, S. (2008) The Principles of Sustainability (2nd ed.), London: Earthscan.
Dryzec, J. S. (1997/2005) The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Ebert, E., Ebert, C. and Bentley, M. (2011). Curriculum definition. In The educator’s
field guide: From organization to assessment, retrieved from:
233
http://www.education.com/reference/article/curriculum-definition/ [accessed 14
.11.12].
Edwards, C. (1997) Changing Places? Flexibility, Lifelong Learning and a Learning
Society, London: Routledge.
Edwards, D. (1991), Categories are talking: On the cognitive and discursive basis of
categorization, Theory & Society, 1, 515-542.
Edwards, D. and Potter, J. (1992). Discursive Psychology. London: Sage.
Ercikan, K. and Roth, W. M. (eds.) (2009) Generalizing from Educational Research:
Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Polarization, London: Routledge.
Elliott, A. (2002) Beck’s Sociology of Risk: A Critical Assessment, Sociology, Vol.
36(2), 293-315.
Eisenhart, M. (2009) ‘Generalization from Qualitative Inquiry’, pp. 51-67 in Ercikan,
K. and Roth, W-M. (eds) Generalizing from Educational Research: Beyond
Qualitative and Quantitative Polarization, London: Routledge.
Emirbayer, M. and Mische, A. (1998) What Is Agency?, The American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 103, No. 4 (Jan.), pp. 962-1023.
European Science Foundation (2013) Science in Society: caring for our futures in
turbulent times, retrieved from http://www.esf.org/publications.html [accessed
12.4.14].
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power, London and New York: Longman.
234
Fairclough, N. (1993) Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public.
Discourse and Society, Vol. 4, No. 2: 133-168.
Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical discourse analysis, London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2001a) The Discourse of New Labour: Critical Discourse Analysis,
pp.229-266 in Wetherell, M., Taylor, S. and Yates, S. J. (eds) Discourse Theory and
Practice: A Guide to Analysis, London: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (2001b) “The Dialectics of Discourse”, in Textus 14 (2), pp. 3-10.
Fairclough, N. (2003) Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research,
London: Routledge.
Feldman, M. (1995) Strategies for interpreting qualitative data, Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Fien, J. (1993a) Education for the Environment: Critical Curriculum Theorising and
Environmental Education, Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Fien, J. (1993b) Environmental Education: A Pathway to Sustainability, Geelong:
Deakin University Press.
Flick, U. (2002) An Introduction to Qualitative Research (2nd edition), London: Sage
Publications.
Flood , M.G., Martin, B. and Dreher, T. (2013) Combining academia and activism:
common obstacles and useful tools, Research Online: University of Wollongong,
retrieved from:
235
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&sqi=
2&ved=0CC4QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fro.uow.edu.au%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cg
i%3Farticle%3D1088%26context%3Dlhapapers&ei=K9MdVK2cGYPC7gbc3YHIBQ&
usg=AFQjCNF40nBpbmfMBaNVjlDAbfG28IpxVw [accessed 29.7.14].
Franklin, J. (ed.) (1998) Politics of Risk Society, Oxford: Polity.
Freire, P. (1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, London: Penguin Books.
Gadamer, H. G. (1975) Truth and Method, London: Sheed and Ward.
Garrick, J. (1999) Doubting the philosophical assumptions of interpretive research,
Qualitative Studies in Education, Vol. 12, No. 2: 147-156.
Gentle, P. (2001) ‘Course cultures and learning organizations’ action learning in
higher education, Vol 2 No.1, July pp 8-31.
Gergen, K. J. (1994) Realities and relationships: Soundings in social constructionism,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gergen, K. J. (1999) An invitation to social constructionism, London: Sage
Publications.
Gergen, K. J. (2001) Construction in contention: Toward consequential resolutions.
Theory and Psychology, Vol. 11: 419-432.
Giarelli, J. M. (1990) ‘Qualitative Inquiry in Philosophy and Education: Notes on the
Pragmatic Tradition, pp 22-28 in Sherman, R. R. and Webb, R. B. (eds) Qualitative
Research in Education: Focus and Methods, London: The Falmer Press.
236
Gibbs, G.R. (2002) Qualitative Data Analysis: Explorations with NVivo, Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Giddens, A. (ed) (1998) Risk Society, the context of British politics, Oxford: Polity
Press.
Giroux, H. A. and McLaren, P. (1994) Between Borders: Pedagogy and the Politics of
Cultural Studies, New York: Routledge.
Giroux, H. A. (2004a) Cultural Studies, Public Pedagogy, and the Responsibility of
Intellectuals, Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, March, pp.
59–79.
Giroux, H. A. (2004b) Critical Pedagogy and the Postmodern/Modern Divide:
Towards a Pedagogy of Democratization, Teacher Education Quarterly, Winter 2004,
pp. 31-47.
Goffman, E. (1963) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, London: Pelican
Books.
Goffman, E. (1975) Frame Analysis: An essay on the Organisation of Experience,
London: Penguin Books.
Golafshani, N. (2003) Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research,
The Qualitative Report. Vol. 8, No. 4: 12-35.
Goodson, I. F. (1988) The Making of Curriculum: Collected Essays, Lewes: Falmer
Press.
237
Goodson, I. F. (1997) The Changing Curriculum: Studies in Social Construction,
New York: Peter Lang.
Gough, S. and Reid, A. (2000) Environmental Education Research as Profession, as
Science, as Art and as Craft: implications for guidelines in qualitative research,
Environmental Education Research, Vol. 6, No. 1: 20-30.
Gough, S. and Scott, W. A. H. (2007) Higher Education and Sustainable
Development: Paradox and Possibility, London: Routledge.
Gough, S. R. and Scott, W. A. H. (2001) Curriculum Development and Sustainable
Development: practices, institutions and literacies, Educational Philosophy & Theory,
Vol. 33, No. 2: 137-152.
Gough, S. and Walker, K. (2001) Lifelong Learning: Towards a Theory of Practice for
Formal and Non-formal Environmental Education and Training, Canadian Journal of
Environmental Education, 6, Spring.
Greenwood, D. and Levin, M. (2000) Re-organizing Universities and ‘Knowing How’:
University Restructuring and Knowledge Creation for the 21st Century. Organisation.
Vol. 8, No. 2: 433-440.
Greig, A., Hulme, D. and Turner, M. (2007) Challenging Global Inequality:
Development Theory and Practice in the 21st Century, London: Palgrave.
Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. (1982) Epistemological and methodological bases of
naturalistic inquiry, Educational Communication and Technology,30 (4), 233-252,
retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30219846, accessed 17.4.12.
238
Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. (1989) ‘What is the Constructivist Paradigm? pp. 158-
170 in Anderson, D. S. and Biddle, D. J. (eds.) (1991) Knowledge for Policy:
Improving Education Through Research, London: The Falmer Press.
Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2005) ‘Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions,
and Emerging Confluences’, pp. 191-215 in Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds)
The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd edition), London: Sage.
Gullone, E. (2000) The Biophilia Hypothesis and Life in the 21st Century: Increasing
Mental Health or Increasing Pathology? Journal of Happiness Studies, 1: 293-321.
Gustavsen, B. (2003) New forms of knowledge production and the role of action
research, Action Research, Vol. 1, No. 2: 153-164.
Habermas, J. (1972) Knowledge and Human Interests, London: Heinemann.
Habermas, J. (1974) Theory and Practice, London: Heinemann.
Hajer, M. (1995) The politics of environmental discourse: ecological modernization
and the policy process, Clarendon Press: Oxford.
Hajer, M. (2005) ‘Coalitions, practices, and meaning in environmental politics: from
acid rain to BSE’ pp. 297-315 in Howarth, D., and Torfing, J. (eds.) Discourse theory
in European politics: identity, policy and governance, Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Hajer, M. (2006) ‘Doing discourse analysis: coalitions, practices, meaning’, pp. 65-74
in van den Brink, M., and Metze, T. (eds.) Words matter in policy and planning:
discourse theory and method in the social sciences, Utrecht: KNAG/Nethur.
239
Hajer, M. and Versteeg, W. (2005) A decade of discourse analysis of environmental
policies: Achievements, challenges, perspectives, Journal of Environmental Policy
and Planning, Volume 7, Issue 3.
Halpin, D. (2003) Hope and Education: The Role of the Utopian Imagination. London:
Routledge.
Hammersley, M., (1992) What’s Wrong with Ethnography? Methodological
Explorations. London: Routledge.
Hammersley, M. (2004) Action research: a contradiction in terms? Oxford Review of
Education. Vol. 30, No. 2: 23-32.
Hammersley, M. (2007) The Issue of Quality in Qualitative Research, International
Journal of Research & Method in Education, Vol. 30, No. 3: 287-305.
Hansen, D. T., ed. (2007) Ethical visions in education: Philosophies in practice, New
York: Teachers College Press.
Hargreaves, A. (2000) Four ages of professionalism and professional learning in
Teachers and Teaching, History and Practice, Vol. 6, No. 2: 151-182.
Hargreaves, A. (2003) Teaching in the knowledge society, Maidenhead, OUP.
Harré, R., Brockmeier, H. and Mühlhäusler, P. (1999) Greenspeak: a Study of
Environmental Discourse, London: Sage.
Harré, R. and Gillett, G. (1994) The Discursive Mind, London: Sage Publications.
240
Harré, R. and Van Langenhove, L. (2010) Varieties of Positioning, pp 106-120 in
Harré, R. and Van Langenhove, L. (eds) People and Societies: Rom Harré and
Designing the Social Sciences, Abingdon: Routledge.
Hatzius, T. (1996) Sustainability and Institutions: Catchwords or New Agenda for
Ecologically Sound Development? IDS Working Paper 4: University of Sussex.
Heilbroner, L. R. (1985) The Nature and Logic of Capitalism, New York: W.W. Norton
& Company.
Hettne, B. (2002) ‘Current Trends and Future options in development Studies’ in
Desai, V. and R.B. Potter, (eds.) The Companion to Development Studies, London:
Arnold.
Hicks, D. W. (2004) Radical Education, pp. 134-148 in Ward, S. (ed.) Education
Studies: A Student’s Guide (2nd edition), London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Hicks, D. W. (2010) The Long Transition: Educating for optimism and hope in
troubled times, Retrieved from
http://teaching4abetterworld.co.uk/docs/download13.pdf [accessed 29.9.12].
Hicks, D. W. (2012) The future only arrives when things look dangerous: Reflections
on futures education in the UK, Futures, January 2012, 44 (1): 4-13.
Hicks, D. and Holden, C. (1995) Visions of the Future: Why we need to teach for
tomorrow, Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.
HEFCE (2005) Sustainable development in higher education: Consultation on a
support strategy and action plan, retrieved from
241
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100202100434/http://www.hefce.ac.uk/p
ubs/hefce/2005/05_01 [accessed 4.7.10].
HEFCE, (2009) Sustainable development in higher education: 2008 update to
strategic statement and action plan, London, HEFCE.
Hitchcock, G. and Hughes, D. (1995) Research and the Teacher. (2nd ed.), London:
Routledge.
Hökkä, P., Eteläpelto, A., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2010). Recent tensions and
challenges in teacher education as manifested in curriculum discourse. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 26 (4), 845-853.
Hopkins, C. and McKeown, R. (2002) ‘Education for sustainable development: an
international perspective’ pp. 13-24 in Tilbury, D., Stevenson, R. B., Fien, J. and
Schreuder, D. (eds.) Education and Sustainability: Responding to the Global
Challenge, Cambridge: IUCN.
Howarth, D. R. (2005) Applying discourse theory: the method of articulation, pp. 297-
315 in Howarth, D. R., and Torfing, J. (eds.) Discourse theory in European politics:
identity, policy and governance, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Howarth, D. R. (2013) Poststructuralism and After: Structure, Subjectivity and Power,
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Huckle, J. (1999) 'Locating Environmental Education Between Modern Capitalism
and Postmodern Socialism: A Reply to Lucie Sauvé, Canadian Journal of
Environmental Education, 4, pp. 36 – 45.
242
Huckle, J. (2004) Critical realism: a philosophical framework for higher education for
sustainability, pp 33-46 in Corcoran, P. B. and Wals, A. E. J. (eds.) Higher Education
and the Challenge of Sustainability, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Huckle, J. (2008) ‘Sustainable Development’, pp. 342-354 in Arthur, J., Davies, I. and
Hahn, C. (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Education for Citizenship and Democracy,
London, Sage Publications.
Huckle, J. (2014) Education for Sustainable Citizenship: an emerging focus for
education for sustainability, pp 228-243 in Huckle, J. and Sterling, S. (eds),
Education for Sustainability, London: Routledge.
Huckle, J. and Sterling, S. eds. (2001) Education for Sustainability. London:
Earthscan Publications.
Hyland, K. (2002) Genre: language, context and literacy, Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, Vol. 22: 113-135.
Iverson, L. L. (2014) Presenting the iterative curriculum discourse analysis (ICDA)
approach. British Journal of Religious Education, Vol. 36, No. 1: 53-71.
Jacobs, M. (1999) Sustainable development as a contested concept, pp. 21-45 in
Dobson, A. (ed.) Fairness and Futurity: Essays on Environmental Sustainability and
Social Justice, Oxford: OUP.
Jickling, B. (1992) Why I don’t want my children educated for sustainable
development. Journal of Environmental Education, Vol. 26, No. 4: 20-45.
243
Jickling, B. (2003). Environmental education and environmental advocacy: revisited.
Journal of Environmental Education, 34(2), p. 20-27.
Jόhannesson, K. N., Gunnhildure, O., Pálsdόttir, A and Björg, P. (2011) Curriculum
analysis and education for sustainable development in Iceland, Environmental
Education Research, Volume 17, Issue 3.
Johnson, J. C. and Weller, S. C. (2002). Elicitation techniques for interviewing, pp.
491-514 in Gubrium, J. F. and Holstein J. A. (eds.) Handbook of Interview Research:
Context and Method, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Jones, P., Selby, D. and Sterling, S. (2010) Sustainability Education: Perspectives
and practice across higher education, London: Earthscan Publications.
Jørgensen, M. and Phillips, L. (2002) Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method,
London: Sage Publications.
Kagawa, F. and Selby, D. (2010) Education and Climate Change: Living and
Learning in Interesting Times, London: Routledge.
Kärlberg, M. (2008) Discourse, Identity, and Global Citizenship, Peace Review: A
Journal of Social Justice, Vol. 20: 310-320.
Karol, J. and Gale, T. (2004) Bourdieu’s Social Theory and Sustainability: What is
‘Environmental Capital’? retrieved from http://www.aare.edu.au/publications-
database.php/4291/Bourdieu's-social-theory-and-sustainability:-What-is-
'environmental-capital [accessed 23.4.14].
244
Keller, R. (2005) Analysing Discourse. An Approach From the Sociology of
Knowledge, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Volume 6, No. 3, Art. 32 –
September.
Keller, R. (2013) Doing Discourse Research: An Introduction for Social Scientists.
London: Sage
Kellert, S. R. (1993) The Biological Basis for Human Values of Nature pp. 42-72 in
Kellert, S. R. and Wilson. E. O. (eds) The Biophilia Hypothesis, Washington: Island
Press.
Kelly, A.V. (1999) The Curriculum: Theory and Practice. (4th ed.) London: Sage
Publications.
Kelly, A.V. (2009) The Curriculum: Theory and Practice. (6th ed.) London: Sage
Publications.
Kemmis, S. (1986) Curriculum theorizing: Beyond Reproduction Theory, Geelong,
Vic.: Deakin University Press.
Kemmis, S., Cole, P. and Suggett, D. (1983) Towards a Socially Critical School:
Orientations to Curriculum and Transition, Melbourne: Victorian Institute of
Secondary Education.
Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (1992) The Action Research Planner, (3rd ed.),
Geelong: Deakin University Press.
245
Kemmis, S. and Wilkinson, M. (1998) Participatory action research and the study of
practice, pp. 21-36 in B. Atweh, B. , Kemmis, S. and Weeks, P. (eds.), Action
research in practice: Partnerships for social justice in education, London: Routledge.
Kincheloe, J. L. (1991) Teachers as Researchers: Qualitative Inquiry as a Path to
Empowerment, London: The Falmer Press.
Kincheloe, J. and McLaren, P. (2005) ‘Rethinking critical theory and qualitative
research’, pp. 303-342, in Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (eds.), The Sage Handbook of
Qualitative Research (3rd Ed), London: Sage Publications.
King, R. (2011) Globalisation and higher education, pp 24-35 in Brennan, J. and
Shah, T. (eds) Higher Education and Society in Changing Times: looking back and
looking forward. CHERI, retrieved from http://www.open.ac.uk/cheri/pages/CHERI-
Reports-2011.shtml accessed 12.10.13.
Koegl, I. and Kurze, K. (2013) Sustainable Development: A Floating Signifier in the
EU’s Energy Policy Discourse? pp. 61-74 in Barnes, P. M. and Hoerber, T. C. (eds.)
Sustainable Development and Governance in Europe: The Evolution of the
Discourse of Sustainability, Abingdon: Routledge.
Kohli, W. (1995) Critical Conversations in Philosophy of Education, London:
Routledge.
Krasny, M. and Dillon, J. (eds) (2013) Trading Zones In Environmental Education:
Creating Trans-Disciplinary Dialogue, New York: Peter Lang.
246
Kress, G. (1989). Linguistic processes in sociocultural practice (2nd ed.), Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing,
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Laclau, E. (1990) New Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time, London: Verso.
Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. (1985) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Towards a
Radical Democratic Politics, London: Verso.
Lane, I. F. (2007) Change in higher education: understanding and responding to
individual and organizational resistance, Journal of Veterinary and Medical
Education, Spring, 34 (2):85-92.
Lash, S. (1994) Expert-Systems or Situated Interpretation? Culture and
Organizations in Disorganized Capitalism, pp. 198-215 in Beck, U., Giddens, A. and
Lash, S., Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern
Social Order, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Lash, S. (2000) Risk culture, pp. 47-63 in Adam, B., Beck, U. and van Loon, J. (eds.)
The risk society and beyond: Critical issues for social theory, London: Sage
Publications
Lash, S. (2003) Reflexivity as Non-Linearity’, Theory, Culture and Society, 20(2), 49-
57.
Lather P (1991) Getting Smart: Feminist Research and Pedagogy With/in the
Postmodern. New York: Routledge.
247
Leal Filho, W. (2011) About the Role of Universities and Their Contribution to
Sustainable Development, Higher Education Policy, 24, 427-438.
Light, G. and Cox, R. (2001) Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: The
Reflective Professional, London: Sage Publications.
Lincoln, YS. & Guba, EG. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry, Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Ljunggren, C. and Öst, I. U. (2008) Professional and personal responsibility in higher
education: An inquiry from a standpoint of pragmatism and discourse theory,
Utbildning & Demokrati, vol 17, no 2, 13–50.
Luke, A. (1995) Text and Discourse in Education: An Introduction to Critical
Discourse Analysis, Review of Research in Education, Vol. 21 (1995 - 1996), pp. 3-
48.
Lovelock, J. (2006) The Revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth is Fighting Back and How
We Can Still Save Humanity, London: Penguin Books.
Luke, A. (2002) Beyond science and ideological critique: Developments in critical
discourse analysis, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22: 96-110.
Macfarlane, B. (2004) Teaching with integrity: the ethics of higher education practice,
New York: Routledge Falmer.
Macfarlane, B. (2011). The Morphing of Academic Practice: Unbundling and the Rise
of the Para academic, Higher Education Quarterly, 65 (1), 59-73.
248
MacLure, M. (2003) Discourse in Educational and Social Research, Buckingham:
OUP.
Marginson, S. (2010) Higher Education as a Global Field, pp. 117-128 in Marginson,
S., Murphy, P. and Peters, M.A., Global Creation: Space, Mobility and Synchrony in
the Age of the Knowledge Economy, New York: Peter Lang.
Marginson, S.and Considine, M. (2000) The enterprise university: Power,
governance and reinvention in Australia, Oakleigh: Cambridge University Press.
Mauthner, N.S. and Doucet , A. (2003) Reflexive Accounts and Accounts of
Reflexivity in Qualitative Data Analysis. Sociology Volume. Vol. 37, No. 3: 413-431,
retrieved from http://www.andreadoucet.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Mauthner-
Doucet-Reflexive-Accounts.pdf [accessed 12/5/2006].
Manning, N. and Shaw, I. (eds.) (2000) New Risks, New Welfare: Signposts for
Social Policy, London:Blackwell.
Marsh, C. J. (2009) Key Concepts for Understanding Curriculum, (4th ed.), London:
Routledge.
Martin, S. (2005) Sustainability, Systems Thinking and Professional Practice
Systemic Practice and Action Research.Vol.18, No. 2, retrieved from
www.pp4sd.org.uk [accessed 12.5.12].
May, T. and Williams, M. (eds) (1998) Knowing the Social World, Buckingham: OUP.
249
McGrail, S. (2011) Environmentalism in Transition? Emerging Perspectives, Issues
and Futures Practices in Contemporary Environmentalism, Journal of Futures
Studies, Vol. 15, No. 3: 117-144.
McKenzie, S. (2004) Social Sustainability: Towards Some Definitions, retrieved from
http://www.unisa.edu.au/hawkeinstitute/publications/downloads/wp27.pdf [accessed
21/03/2012].
McKernan, J. (1991) Curriculum Action Research: A Handbook of Methods and
Resources for the Reflective Practitioner, London: Kogan Page.
McKernan, J. (2008) Curriculum and Imagination: Process Theory, Pedagogy and
Action Research, London: Routledge.
McNaghten, P. and Urry, J. (1998) Contested Natures, London: Sage Publications.
Meadows, D. (2001) Dancing with Systems, Whole Earth, Winter, retrieved from:
http://www.wholeearthmag.com/ArticleBin/447.html [accessed 25/05/2007].
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Application in
Education, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Mezirow, J. (2000) Learning as Transformation: critical perspectives on a theory in
progress, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Mezirow, J. (2003) Transformative Learning as Discourse, Journal of Transformative
Education. Vol. 1, No. 1: 58-63.
250
Minter, C. (2001) Some Flaws in the Common Theory of ‘Widening Participation’,
Research in Post-Compulsory Education, Vol. 6, No. 3: 12-32.
Moen, T. (2006) Reflections on the Narrative Research Approach, International
Journal of Qualitative Methods 5 (4) December.
Neary, M. (2003) Curriculum studies in post-compulsory and adult education: A
teacher’s and student teacher’s study guide, Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes Ltd.
Neubert, S. (2001) Pragmatism and Constructivism in Contemporary Philosophical
Discourse. retrieved from
www.hf.unikoeln.de%2Fdata%2Fdewey%2FFile%2FNeubert_Pragmatism_Construct
ivism.pdf&ei=pxolVOrzGvDe7Aano4DIAQ&usg=AFQjCNEN-ZpkCYd7xS9AdaoA-
hZFg75pIg [accessed 16/8/2008].
Newman, J. (2009) Values Reflection and the Earth Charter: the ability to critique the
values of an unsustainable society and consider alternatives, retrieved from
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=
rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQFjAAahUKEwiB4JOg1trHAhXGOBQKHRArCb0&url=http%3
A%2F%2Farts.brighton.ac.uk%2F__data%2Fassets%2Fpdf_file%2F0008%2F5957
%2FEarth-Charter.pdf&usg=AFQjCNG1YfljX8ivcNM24iQ5JSONQiflcQ, [accessed
13.12.13].
Newman, M. (2012) Calling Transformative Learning into Question: Some Mutinous
Thoughts, Adult Education Quarterly, Nov., Vol. 62 Issue 4.
Newman, L. and Dale, A. (2005) The role of agency in sustainable local
communitydevelopment, Local Environment,10 (5), 477–486.
251
Nightingale, D. J. and Cromby, J. (2002) Social Constructionism as Ontology:
Exposition and Example, Theory & Psychology, Vol. 12, No. 5: 703-713.
O’Donoghue, T. (2007) Planning Your Qualitative Research Project. An Introduction
to Interpretivist Research in Education, Abingdon: Routledge.
Olssen, M. (2006) Michel Foucault: Materialism and Education, London: Paradigm
Publishers.
Olssen, M. (2014) Discourse, Complexity, Normativity: Tracing the elaboration of
Foucault’s materialist concept of discourse, Open Review of Educational Research,
1:1, 28-55.
Olssen, M., Codd, J. and O’Neill, A-M. (2004) Education policy, globalization,
citizenship, and democracy, London: Sage Publications.
O’Neill, G. (2010) Curriculum Design: Overview of Curriculum Models, retrieved from
http://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/ucdtlp00631.pdf [accessed 28 September 2013].
Ornstein, A., Hunkins, C. and Francis, P. (1989) Curriculum Theory: Meaning,
Function and Practice, NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 73, No. 519: 103-110.
Orr, D. (1992) Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to a Postmodern
World, Albany: State University of New York Press.
Orr, D. W. (1994) Earth in Mind. On Education, Environment and the Human
Prospect, Washington, DC: Island Press.
252
Orr, D. (2009) Down to the Wire: Confronting climate collapse, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ozga, J. (2000) Policy research in educational settings, Maidenhead: Open
University Press.
Parsons, R. (1995) Conflict between ecological sustainability and environmental
aesthetics: Conundrum, canärd or curiosity, Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume
32, Issue 3, August 1995, pp. 227–244.
Peters, M. A. and Burbules, N. C. (2004) Poststructuralism and Educational
Research, Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Peet, R. and Hartwick, E. (1999) Theories of Development, New York: The Guilford
Press
Peschl, M. F. (2007) Triple-Loop Learning as Foundation for Profound Change,
Individual Cultivation, and Radical Innovation: Construction Processes beyond
Scientific and Rational Knowledge, Constructivist Foundations, Vol. 2, No. 2-3: 136-
145.
Peters, M. and Humes, W. (2003) Editorial: The reception of post-structuralism in
educational research and policy, Journal of Education Policy, 18:2, 109-113.
Peters, S. and Wals, A. E. J. (2013) Learning and Knowing in Pursuit of
Sustainability: Concepts and Tools for Trans-Disciplinary Environmental Research,
pp. 79-104 in Krasny, M. and Dillon, J. (eds.) Trading Zones In Environmental
Education: Creating Trans-Disciplinary Dialogue, New York: Peter Lang.
253
Peterson, M. and Spencer, M. (1991) Understanding academic culture and climate,
pp. 140-155 in Peterson, M. (ed.) ASHE reader on organization and governance,
Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster.
Pinar, W. (2004) What is Curriculum Theory? New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P. and Taubman, P. M. (1995).
Understanding Curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and
contemporary curriculum discourses, New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Pitsoe, V. J. and Dichaba, M. M. (2013) Cultural Hegemony in Open Distance
Learning: Does it Really Matter? Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 4,
No. 6: July 2013.
Porter, C. (2007) Ottowa to Bangkok: changing health promotion discourse, Health
Promotion International, Mar;22(1):72-9.
Porter, M. E. (1991/2007) Towards a Dynamic Theory of Strategy, Strategic
Management Journal, Volume 12, Issue S2, pp. 95-117, Winter
Potter, J. (1996). Representing Reality. Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction.
London: Sage Publications.
Potter, J. (2004). Discourse analysis as a way of analysing naturally occurring talk,
pp. 200-218 in Silverman, D. (ed.), Qualitative research: theory, method and practice,
London: Sage Publications.
Potter, J. (2005) Making psychology relevant. Discourse and Society, Vol. 16, No. 5:
739-747.
254
Potter, R. B., Binns, T., Elliott, J. A. and Smith, D. (2004) Geographies of
Development (2nd edition), Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.
Potter, J. and Wetherell, M. (1994) Analysing discourse, pp. 47-66 in Bryman, A. and
Burgess, R. (eds.), Analysing qualitative data, Abingdon: Routledge.
Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987) Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes
and behaviour, London: Sage Publications.
Poulson, L. and Wallace, M. (eds) Learning to read critically in teaching and learning,
London: Sage Publications.
Preston, P. W. (1996) Development Theory: An Introduction, Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing.
Pring, R. (2000) Philosophy of Educational Research, London: Continuum.
Punch, K. F. (1998) Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative
Approaches, London: Sage.
Quinn, N. (2005) How to Reconstruct Schemas People Share. Finding Culture in
Talk: A Collection of Methods, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Quinn, N. (2009) The Cultural Analysis of Discourse, pp 237-258 in Luttrell, W. (ed.)
Qualitative Educational Readings in Reflexive Methodology and Transformative
Practice, London: Routledge.
Radnor, H. A. (1994) Collecting and Analysing Interview Data, Exeter: University of
Exeter.
255
Rahimi, A. and Sahragard, R. (2006) A Critical Discourse Analysis of Euphemization
and Derogation in E-mails on the Late Pope, The Linguistics Journal, January,
Volume 2.
Rauch, F. (2004) Education for Sustainability: A regulative idea and trigger for
innovation pp. 149-151 in Scott, W. and Gough, S. (eds) Key Issues in Sustainable
Development and Learning: A Critical Review, London; Routledge Falmer.
Reason, P and Bradbury, H. (eds.) (2001) Handbook of Action Research:
Participative Inquiry and Practice, London: Sage Publications.
Redclift, M. R. (1989) Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions,
London: Methuen.
Reid, A. & Petocz, P. (2006) University Lecturers’ Understanding of Sustainability,
Higher Education, 51, 105-123.
Reis, G. and Roth, W-M. (2007) Environmental education in action: a discursive
approach to curriculum design, Environmental Education Research, Volume 13,
Issue 3.
Reynolds, J. and Wetherell, M. (2003) The discursive climate of singleness: the
consequences for women’s negotiation of a single identity, Feminism & Psychology,
13(4) pp. 489–510.
Richardson, L. (2000) ‘Writing: A Method of Inquiry’, pp. 923-949 in Denzin, N. K.
and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research (second edition),
London: Sage Publications.
256
Rist, G. (1997) The History of Development: From Western Origins to Global Faith,
London: Zed Books.
Rist, G. (2010) Development as a buzzword, pp. 19-28 in Cornwall, A. and Eade, D.
(eds.) (2010) Deconstructing Development Discourse Buzzwords and Fuzzwords,
Oxford: Oxfam.
Robinson, J. (2004) Squaring the Circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable
development, Ecological Economics, Vol. 48, No. 2004: 369-384.
Robinson, K. (2001) Out of Our Minds: Learning to be Creative, Oxford: Capstone
Publishing.
Roth, W. M. (2008) The nature of scientific conceptions: A discursive psychological
perspective, Educational Research Review, Vol. 3, No. 2008: 30-50.
Ryan, A (2011) Education for sustainable development and holistic curriculum
change: A review and guide, York: HEA.
Ryden, Y. (1999) Can we talk ourselves into sustainability? The role of discourse in
the environmental policy process, Environmental Values, Vol. 8, No. 4: 467-484.
Sachs, W. (1992) The Development Dictionary: a Guide to Knowledge as Power,
London: Zed books.
Saldaña, J. (2009) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, London: Sage.
Saito, Y. (1984) Is there a Correct Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature? Journal of
Aesthetic Education, 18(4): 35-46.
257
Sarantakos, S. (2005) Social Research (3rd ed.), Melbourne: Macmillan Education.
Sauvé, L. (2005) Currents in Environmental Education, The Journal of Environmental
Education, 10.
Sayer A, (1991) Behind the locality debate: deconstructing geography's dualisms,
Environment and Planning, 23(2) 283 – 308.
Sayer, A. (2001) ‘For Postdisciplinary Studies: Sociology and the Curse of
Disciplinary Parochialism/Imperialism’ in Eldridge, J., MacInnes, J., Scott, S.,
Warhurst, C. and Witz, A. (eds.) For Sociology: Legacies and Prospects, Durham:
Sociology Press.
Schön D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, New
York: Basic Books.
Schön, D. A. (1991) Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for
Teaching and Learning in Professions, Oxford: Jossey-Bass.
Schön, D. (1998) Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for
Teaching and Learning in Professions, Oxford: Jossey Bass.
Schwandt, T. A. (2000) ‘Three Epistemological Stances for Qualitative Inquiry:
Interpretivism, Hermeneutics and Social Constructionism’, pp. 189-215 in Denzin, N.
K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd edition),
London: Sage.
258
Scott, W. (2002) ‘Sustainability and learning: what role for the curriculum’, University
of Bath: CREE.
Scott, W. and Gough, S. (eds.) Key Issues in Sustainable Development and
Learning: A Critical Review, London: Routledge.
Scott, D. and Usher, R. (1999) Researching Education: Data, Methods and Theory in
Educational Enquiry, London: Cassell.
Seale, C. (ed) (2012) Researching Society and Culture (3rd edition), London: Sage
Publications.
Selby, D. (1999) Global Education: Towards a Quantum Model of Environmental
Education, Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 4, Summer.
Selby, D. (2005) ‘Responding to Globalisation and the Global Condition.
Technocratic Skills or Normative Ideals? A Critique of Douglas Bourne’s Conception
of Global Education’, Zeitschrift fur Bildungsforschung und Entwicklungspadagogik
(Journal for International Education Research and Development Education), 28(1):
35-39.
Selby, D. (2006) The firm and shaky ground of education for sustainable
development, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, Vol.30, Issue 2: 351-365
retrieved from from www.sustainabilityfrontiers.org/index.php?page=publications
[accessed 12/3/2008].
259
Sen, A. (2007) Capability and Well-being, pp. 270-294 in Hausman, D. M. (ed.) The
Philosophy of Economics: An Anthology, (3rd edition), Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Sen, A. (2013) The Ends and Means of Sustainability, Journal of Human
Development and Capabilities: A Multi-Disciplinary Journal for People-Centered
Development, 14:1, 6-20 retrieved from:
www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/19452829.2012.747492 [accessed 3.2.14].
Shaw I (2005) Practitioner Research: Evidence or Critique? British Journal of Social
Work retrieved from:
http://www.wmcallan.plus.com/%3C..%3E/Components/Literature%20Review/Expert
%20Opinion/Shaw%202005.pdf [accessed 12/2/06].
Shay, S. (2012) Educational development as a field: are we there yet? Higher
Education Research and Development, 31, 3, 311-323.
Shephard, K. (2008) Higher education for sustainability: seeking affective learning
outcomes, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9, 1, 87-98.
Shepard , M. (2006) Using a learning journal to improve professional practice: a
journey of personal and professional self‐discovery, Reflective Practice: International
and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, Vol. 7, No. 3: 333-348.
Sherman, R. R. and Webb, R. B. (eds.) (1990) Qualitative Research in Education:
Focus and Methods, London: Falmer Press.
260
Silverman, D. (2010) Doing Qualitative Research: a practical handbook. London:
Sage.
Singh, M. and Little, B. (2011) Learning and engagement dimensions of higher
education in knowledge society discourses, pp. 36-43 in Brennan, J. and Shah, T.
(eds) Higher Education and Society in Changing Times: looking back and looking
forward, retrieved from http://www.open.ac.uk/cheri/pages/CHERI-Reports-
2011.shtml [accessed 21.4.14]
Slattery, P. (2013) Curriculum Development in the Postmodern Era: Teaching and
Learning in an Age of Accountability, 3rd edition, London: Routledge.
Slaughter, R. A. (2004) The Transformative Cycle: a Tool for Illuminating Change,
Monograph Series. Vol. 6: 12-23.
Smith, D. M. (2000) Moral Progress in Human Geography: Transcending the Place of
Good Fortune, Progress in Human Geography, Vol 24, No.1:1-18.
Snow, D. A. and Benford, R. D. (1988) Ideology, frame resonance, and participant
mobilization. International Social Movement Research, Vol 1:197–217.
Sousa, S. B. (2011) Higher education in the risk society, pp 54-61 in Brennan, J. and
Shah, T. (eds) Higher Education and Society in Changing Times: looking back and
looking forward. CHERI, retrieved from http://www.open.ac.uk/cheri/pages/CHERI-
Reports-2011.shtml [accessed 21.4.14].
261
Spies, T. (2009) Discourse, Subject, and Agency. Linking Discourse Analysis and
Biographical Research with the Help of the Concept of Articulation, Forum:
Qualitative Social Research, Volume 10, No. 2.
Spradley, J. P. (1980) Participant Observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Stables, A. W. G. (2001) Language and Meaning in Environmental Education: an
overview, Environmental Education Research, Vol. 7, No. 2: 121-128.
Stables, A. W. G. (2001) Who Drew the Sky? Conflicting Assumptions in
Environmental Education. Educational Philosophy and Theory. Vol. 33, No. 2: 245-
256.
Stables, A. W. G. & Scott, W. A. H. (2001) Post-Humanist Liberal Pragmatism:
environmental education out of modernity, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 35(2)
269-280.
Stacey, R. D. (2007) Strategic Management and Organizational Dynamics: The
Challenge of Complexity, Harlow: Pearson Education.
Stefanovic, I. (2000) Safeguarding our common future: Rethinking sustainable
development, Albany: State University of New York Press.
Stenhouse, L. (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development,
London: Heinemann.
262
Stenhouse, L. (1985) Research as a Basis for Teaching, pp. 124-126 in Ruddock, J.
and Hopkins, D. (eds.) Research as a Basis for Teaching: Readings from the Work of
Lawrence Stenhouse, London: Heinemann.
Stefani, L. (2004-2005) Assessment of student learning: Promoting a scholarly
approach. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. [Online] Available from:
http://www2.glos.ac.uk/offload/tli/lets/lathe/issue1/articles/stefani.pdf [accessed
18.9.07].
Sterling, S. (2001) Sustainable Education: Re-visioning Learning and Change,
Dartington: Green Books.
Sterling, S. (2004) An Analysis of the Development of Sustainability Education
Internationally: Evolution, Interpretation and Transformative Potential, pp. 43-62 in
Blewitt, J. and Cullingford, C. (eds.) The Sustainability Curriculum: The Challenge for
Higher Education, London: Earthscan.
Sterling, S. (2005) ‘Whole Systems Thinking as a Basis for Paradigm Change in
Education: Explorations in the Context of Sustainability’, retrieved from
http://www.bath.ac.uk/cree/sterling.htn [accessed 22.3.8].
Sterling, S. (2008) Sustainable education - towards a deep learning response to
unsustainability, Policy & Practice: A Development Education Review. Vol. 6, No.
Spring: 63-68.
Sterling, S., Blake, J. and Kagawa, K. (2009) Getting it together: Interdisciplinary and
Sustainability in the Higher Education Institution. Centre for Sustainable Futures,
UoP. Occasional Paper 3.
263
Sterling, S. (2010) Learning for resilience, or the resilient learner? Towards a
necessary reconciliation in a paradigm of sustainable education, Environmental
Education Research, Vol. 16, Issue 5-6: 511-528.
Sterling, S. (2011) Transformative learning and sustainability: sketching the
conceptual ground, Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, No. 5: 17-33.
Sterling, S. (2013) The Future Fit Framework – An introductory guide to teaching and
learning for sustainability in HE, York: The Higher Education Academy.
Stern, N. (2006) Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change, HM
Treasury. Retrieved from
http://www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/d/CLOSED_SHORT_executive_summary.pdf.
[accessed 3.6.7].
Stevens, A. (2011) Telling Policy Stories: An Ethnographic Study in the Use of
Evidence in Policy Making in the UK, International Social Policy, 40 (2), 237-255.
Stibbe, A (2005) Environmental education across cultures: beyond the discourse of
shallow environmentalism, Language & Intercultural Communication. Vol.4. No
4:242-260, retrieved from http://www.multilingual-
matters.net/laic/004/0242/laic0040242.pdf [accessed 17.3.12].
Stibbe, A. (2005) Counter-discourses and harmonious relationships between humans
and other animals, Anthrozoös, Vol. 18, No. 1: 3-17.
Stibbe, A. (2006) Deep Ecology and Language: The Curtailed Journey of the Atlantic
salmon, Society and Animals, Vol. 14, No. 1: 61-77.
264
Stibbe, A. (ed.) (2009) The Handbook of Sustainability Literacy: Skills for a Changing
World, Totnes: Green Books.
Stoddart, M. (2007) Ideology, Hegemony, Discourse: A Critical Review of Theories of
Knowledge and Power, Social Thought & Research, Vol. 28: 191-225.
Strauss, A. (1987) Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists, New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Sylvestre, P., McNeil, R. and Wright, T. (2013) From Talloires to Turin: A Critical
Discourse Analysis of Declarations for Sustainability in Higher Education,
Sustainability, Vol. 5, No. 4: 1356-1371.
Szerszynski, B. (1996) On knowing what to do: environmentalism and the modern
problematic, pp. 104-138 In Lash, S., Szerszynski, B. and Wynne, B. (eds.) Risk,
Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology, London: Sage Publications.
Tan, S-I. and Moghaddam, F. M. (1995) Reflexive Positioning and Culture, Journal
for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 25 (4): 387-400.
Taylor, S. (2001) Locating and Conducting Discourse Analytic Research, pp. 5-48 in
Wetherell, M., Taylor, S. and Yates, S. J. (eds) Discourse as Data: A Guide for
Analysis, London: Routledge.
Thomas, R. and Davies, A. (2005) Theorizing the micro-politics of resistance: New
public management and managerial identities in the UK public services, Organization
Studies, 26 (5), 683.
265
Thomas, L., Hegarty, K. and Holdsworth, S. (2012) The Education for Sustainability
Jig-Saw Puzzle: Implementation in Universities, Creative Education, Vol. 3, special
issue: 840-846.
Thomas, L. and May, H. (2010) Inclusive learning and teaching in higher education.
York: Higher Education Academy
Thompson, J. B. (1984) Studies in the Theory of Ideology, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Tight, M. (2003) Researching Higher Education, Buckingham: OUP.
Tilbury, D. (ed) (2002) Education and Sustainability: Responding to the Global
Challenge. Cambridge: IUCN.
Tilbury, D. (2011) Education and Sustainable Development: An Expert Review of
Processes and Learning, Paris: UNESCO.
Tilbury, D. and Mulà, I. (2009). Review of Education for Sustainable Development
Policies from a Cultural Diversity and Intercultural Dialogue: Gaps and Opportunities
for Future Action. Paris: UNESCO.
Tilbury, D. and Wortman, D. (2004) engaging people in sustainability. (online)
available at
http://www.unece.org/env/esd/information/Publications%20IUCN/engaging%20peopl
e.pdf [accessed 12.2.9].
Tilbury, D., Stevenson, R. B., Fien, J. and Schreuder, D. (eds.) Education and
Sustainability: Responding to the Global Challenge, Cambridge: IUCN.
266
Tirado, F and Galvez, A (2007) Positioning Theory and Discourse Analysis: Some
Tools for Social Interaction Analysis, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Vol. 8, No.
2.
Toma, J. D. (1999) ‘Understanding Why Scholars Choose to Work in Alternative
Inquiry Paradigms’, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 50, No. 5: 12-34.
Torrés, C. A. (1999) Comparative Education: The Dialectics of Globalization and its
Discontents, pp. 459-484 in Torres, C. A., and Arnove, R. (eds.) Comparative
Education: The Dialectics of the Global and the Local. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman
and Littlefield.
Tregidga, H. M., Milne, M. J. and Kearins, K. N. (2011) Sustainable Development as
a Floating Signifier: Recognising Space for Resistance. Launceston, Australia: The
10th Australasian Conference on Social and Environmental Accounting Research, 5-
7 Dec 2011. (Conference Contributions - Full conference papers), retrived from
www.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/.../Tregidga_Milne_Kearins.pdf [accessed
13.2.14].
Tripp, D. (1992) Critical theory and educational research, Issues in Educational
Research. Vol. 2, No. 1: 98-112.
Trowler, P. (2001) Captured by the Discourse? The Socially Constitutive Power of
New Higher Education Discourse in the United Kingdom, Organization, May, Vol. 8,
No. 2: 183-201.
Trowler, P. (2010) Large Scale University Curriculum Change: from Practice to
Theory (and back again), Thinkpiece, Lancaster University, retrieved from
267
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=
0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brad.ac.uk%2Fsustainable-
universities%2Fmedia%2Fsustainableuniversities%2FKeynote-Prof-Paul-
Trowler.pdf&ei=1-kdVIKAI-
md7gbR0IC4Cw&usg=AFQjCNHr6xNvD9CZPbg6hh_uFFuZnbLmRg&bvm=bv.7577
5273,d.d2s [accessed 12/8/2012].
Turner, M. K. (2005) Sustainability: principles and practice, pp 38-68 in Redclift, M.
(ed.) Sustainability: Critical Concepts in the Social Sciences, Abingdon: Routledge.
UNESCO, (2002) Education for Sustainability – From Rio to Johannesburg: Lessons
learnt from a decade of commitment, Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO (2005) Values of Sustainable Development, retrieved from
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-
agenda/education-for-sustainable-development/sustainable-development/values-sd/,
[accessed 21.2.12].
Usher, R. and Edwards, R. (1994) Postmodernism and Education: Different voices,
different worlds, London: Routledge.
Vincent, C., ed. (2003) Social Justice, Education and Identity, London: Routledge.
Walker, M. (2012) A capital or capabilities education narrative in a world of
staggering inequalities? International Journal of Educational Development, Volume
32, Issue 3, May, pp. 384–393.
268
Wals, A. E. J. and Jickling, B. (2002). “Sustainability" in higher education: from
doublethink and newspeak to critical thinking and meaningful learning, Higher
Education Policy, Vol: 15: 121-131. Also published in: International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education. Vol 3, No.3: 221-232.
Wals, A. E. J. (2011) Learning Our Way to Sustainability, Journal of Education for
Sustainable Development, Vol. 5, No. 2011: 177.
Wals, A. E. J. (2012) Shaping the Education of Tomorrow. UN Decade of Education
for Sustainable Development: UNESCO.
Webb, J., Schirato, T. and Danaher, G. (2002) Understanding Bourdieu, Sydney:
Allen & Unwin.
Wetherell, M. (1998). Positioning and interpretative repertoire: conversation analysis
and post-structuralism in dialogue, Discourse & Society, Vol.9. No.3: 387−412.
Wetherell, M. (2001a) Themes in Discourse Research: The Case of Diana, pp 14-28
in Wetherell, M., Taylor, S. and Yates, S. J. (eds.) Discourse Theory and Practice: A
Reader. London: Routledge.
Wetherell, M. (2001b) Debates in Discourse Research, pp.380-399 in Wetherell, M.,
Taylor, S. and Yates, S. J. (eds) Discourse Theory and Practice: A Reader. London:
Routledge.
Wetherell, M. (2005). Unconscious conflict or everyday accountability? British
Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 169−173.
269
Wetherell, M. (2007) A step too far: discursive psychology, linguistic ethnography
and question of identity, Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(5), 661−681.
Wetherell, M. and Potter, J. (1988). Discourse analysis and the identification of
interpretative repertoires, pp. 168-183 in Antaki, C. (ed.) Analysing Everyday
Explanation: A Casebook of Methods, London: Sage Publications.
Wilkinson, D. and Birmingham, P. (2003) Using Research Instruments: A Guide for
Researchers, London: Routledge.
Wodak, R. and Krzyzanowski, M., eds. (2008) Qualitative discourse analysis in the
social sciences, Basingstoke:Palgrave MacMillan
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Our Common
Future, Oxford: OUP.
Yardley, K. and Honess, T. (eds.) (1987) Self and identity: Psychosocial
perspectives, Chichester: Wiley.
Young, M. F. D. (1971) Knowledge and Control, London: Collier Macmillan.
Young, M. F. D. (1998) The Curriculum of the Future: From the new sociology of
education to a critical theory of learning, London: Falmer Press.
Zeyer, A. and Roth, W.M. (2011) Post-ecological Discourse in the Making, Public
Understanding of Science, Vol. 22: 33-48.
Zelle, G. (2009) Exploring the application of positioning theory to the analysis of organisational change, Research Online: University of Woolagong, retrieved from http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCkQFjABahUKEwj7xfvgp93HAhWHSRoKHUj0AyM&url=http%3
270
A%2F%2Fro.uow.edu.au%2Fcommpapers%2F574%2F&usg=AFQjCNFOs2-0sn1XOIbNhTkhx4igAl24kA&bvm=bv.102022582,d.d2s [accessed 9.3.13].
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (ed) (2012) Action Research for Sustainable Development in a
Turbulent World. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Group Limited. University of
Wollongong.